Stewart Hosie: It is clear from the Conservative question that the Conservatives want to continue to cut the Scottish budget. Of course, the UK Labour Government's position is also to cut £1 billion from the Scottish budget. Does the Secretary of State agree with Rhodri Morgan, the leader of the Labour party in Wales, that now is the wrong time to be cutting public expenditure? Will he stand up to the Treasury, demand that the £1 billion cut is frozen or reversed and that Scotland have the opportunity—

Jim Murphy: I was in Dundee recently and met business representatives and trade unions. They welcomed the proposals being made by the UK Government. The hon. Gentleman invites me to agree with the comments of a fellow politician; I invite him to agree with the comments of Mr. Swinney, who is from his party. He said that
	"we welcome a number of elements of the direction that the UK Government has taken to get the economy moving."—[ Scottish Parliament Official Report, 26 November 2008; c. 12722-23.]
	The Scottish Government now have more than double the budget that Donald Dewar had about a decade ago. They should put it to good use and invest in Scotland to get us through this economic storm. I am determined to do what I can and will work with anyone in the interests of Scotland to ensure that that happens.

Ann McKechin: It is something that we have discussed and will continue to discuss. It is clearly important to stimulate the housing market, especially social housing, throughout the UK, and that is why we have introduced packages to that effect in England and Wales already. It is important that there is an increase in the amount of social housing available in Scotland to meet the very high demand that exists already and to stimulate the housing market in general.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend has a long history of providing support and advice for people with personal debt problems, but the momentum in Scotland for repossessions has been growing. For example, Mike Dailly of the Govan law centre has drawn to our attention the fact that the number of repossession proceedings in Scotland has increased rapidly. It is important that appropriate protocols are put in place at the earliest opportunity and without delay, and that the network of sheriff court advice centres is extended. At present, there are advice centres in only seven of Scotland's 49 sheriff courts, but it is important that people can get advice as soon as they face the threat of repossession.

Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State clearly knows the contribution that RAF Leuchars in my constituency has made to British defence for a very long time. He has told the House of the total contribution of defence expenditure to the Scottish economy. Will he consider a study into the contribution that individual defence installations make to their local economy, to include RAF Leuchars and also, perhaps, Faslane?

Jim Murphy: I do not keep the Prime Minister's diary, but I have announced that the First Minister, the CBI, the STUC and I will be coming together. We will look at what happened during previous recessions in the United Kingdom. We will look at the position of the Government at those times, who said that unemployment was a price worth paying. We will do the opposite. Unemployment is never a price worth paying, and we will do everything that we can to prevent the long-term generational unemployment that typified the Tory approach to previous recessions.  [Interruption.]

Jim Murphy: There we have it. The Conservatives' approach would be entirely different. We know that from their history: long-term generational unemployment; incapacity benefit numbers trebling; a poll tax in Scotland first; no investment whatever in public services; and child poverty in the United Kingdom higher than any industrialised nation in the world. Yes, there are enormous differences between the two parties. We believe in investing in these economically difficult times; the Conservatives are out of touch with the mainstream across the world, including new President Obama. On that basis, they are economically illiterate and politically isolated.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has pushed the matter for many years, since he was a local authority leader. The decline in mortgage lending is mainly the result of the loss of capacity in the mortgage market. So even if existing banks lend more to home owners, the loss of foreign and other capacity in the market makes it more difficult for people to get mortgages at a price that they can afford. That is why we are saying that local authorities that already have the power to issue mortgages should be encouraged to do so, and why the Minister for Housing has announced a lowering of the standard interest rate. We are now considering what more we can do to help individuals and households meet their housing needs. I hope that the answer I give my hon. Friend on his 68th birthday is acceptable.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Israeli Government have a responsibility to help humanitarian help to get into the Gaza area. I have just written to Prime Minister Olmert asking him to take urgent action to ensure that the crossings are open so that the lorry loads of help can be brought into the area. I am urging him to open the crossings and also to provide proper humanitarian access. I think that people know that the UK has trebled its humanitarian efforts. I have been talking to leaders in the Arab countries about what more they can do, and there is a conference in Egypt over the next few days to pool the resources to ensure that humanitarian help is available not only to provide immediate aid but to rebuild the Gaza area. I believe that all Members of the House will want to see aid getting into Gaza as quickly as possible.

Tim Boswell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that public authorities and public servants shall not be subject to any criminal or civil penalty as a result of the exercise of reasonable discretion in the performance of their functions; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill is about advancing common sense and fighting bureaucracy. I owe its rather strange long title to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my friend and supporter of the Bill. There is, of course, a mild irony in the title because it is itself an exercise in bureaucratic speak. It resembles my favourite rule in my college library—rule 6, which is that "No one is to mark or deface any book or other property of the library", alongside which someone had added, very neatly in ink, "Hear, hear"!
	The formal intent of the Bill is to indemnify public servants, central government, local government and other public agencies from legal action if they had taken decisions motivated by common sense, whatever the rules strictly said. I shall come on in a few moments to the underlying thought, but at the outset let me first get three potential criticisms out of the way. The first is that what I propose is so self-evidently sensible that it is already part of our law and practice. It is true that there are common law precedents—as well as modern practices such as that of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which explicitly uses extra-statutory concessions that go beyond tax law—but however sensible those measures are, they do not establish a general principle or cover every case. A second objection might be that the Bill in some way represents a charter for vexatious litigation and legal challenge, but I would maintain that the legal concept of responsibility is by now well established. My intention is to fight off unnecessary legislation, far from encouraging it.
	I imagine that it might suit some opponents of the Bill to paint me as some kind of anarchist, denying the proper function of rules in a modern society. It is, perhaps, rather unlikely that a former inhabitant of the Whips Office would undergo such a deathbed conversion, and I assure the House that I have not; but I think that even the best and most well-honed rule book must be interpreted in the light of the facts, if only because rules often clash with one another.
	That brings me to the substance of my case. There probably never was a golden age of balance between sensible rules on the one hand and the wise use of discretion on the other. I generally welcome the growth of judicial review since the second world war as a necessary curb on an over-mighty Executive and arbitrary decision-making processes. Nor is it wrong to ask for greater openness and transparency in our public affairs. However, all that can be taken to extremes, can exceed the bounds of common sense, and can actually harm us.
	The House will have noted that there has been a lot of talk about this issue recently, since the idea occurred to me but not, I think, because of it. Indeed, we have legislated, in the Compensation Act 2006, to try to curb the paralysis that threatened, for example, outdoor activities for young people when adult volunteers no longer felt able to take part in them because of implications of liability for reasons of health and safety and so forth. I believe, however, that the "mind your back" culture has seeped much more deeply into our national life, affecting and poisoning the whole of it.
	I nearly always respect the writings of Libby Purves. She is eminently sensible. Some months ago, she wrote in an article in  The Times:
	"We read too many stories about this craven, inhuman, poltroonish cowering behind rules and routines, and about individuals who get into trouble for momentarily breaching them in the name of humanity or sense."
	Retreat into the rules is an excellent bureaucratic bomb shelter. Its private sector equivalent would perhaps be the saying—now, I think, somewhat discredited, and certainly out of fashion—that no executive was ever fired for choosing to buy IBM computers. Incidentally, my Bill could be usefully adapted to include private sector employees engaged in the discharge of their duties, although it is not currently so drafted.
	Alongside every petty bureaucratic tyrant who relishes frustrating someone by finding a rule with which to do them down is an even worse and wider set of problems. They include the deterrent effect on decent public employees of the fear that any risk they might take could backfire if it were unsuccessful—if something went wrong—and, at the level of, say, a local planning authority, the fear that any decision, however sensible, might set a precedent for some other proposal.
	My final and, I think, my greatest bugbear is the collapse and deformation of public service into a hollow shell of process, and training courses undertaken not so much to improve competition or competence as to cover any threat of litigation. While it is always dangerous to comment on particular cases, I wonder, in the context of this week's events, how many decisions on school closures were made with an eye to the courts rather than in the interests of children and their families. Frankly, fear of liability seems to have more effectively stopped London this week than ever fear of Hitler did.
	My Bill is a simple one. It seeks to rebalance matters by providing a public authority or public official with the defence of exercising "reasonable discretion". It would support those who back their own professional judgment—and also, perhaps, all those who work hard on our behalf without a professional qualification, but who seek to do the best for their customers and to act both sensibly and responsibly.
	By establishing the principle of
	"the exercise of reasonable discretion",
	the Bill would strike a blow for a concept whose time has clearly now come. We need in our public life again to achieve what I would describe as a victory for common sense, and I believe this Bill would advance that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Tim Boswell, James Brokenshire, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. David Kidney, Bob Russell and Sir George Young present the Bill.
	Mr. Tim Boswell accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 56).

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. May I place on record my thanks to him—or his predecessor as Police Minister—and the Minister for Local Government for meeting those police authorities that faced the prospect of a cap, and for hearing the arguments we put forward before making their final decision? That process of negotiation was extremely important in dealing with this issue.

Vernon Coaker: We are trying to be fair to Welsh police forces. The hon. Gentleman will know that Welsh police forces outside the South Wales police force benefit from our giving them an additional approximately £15 million to ensure that they are funded in exactly the same way as police forces in England—I know that is welcomed in Wales. He also talked about the rule 2 grants—the separate pots of money, for example, the rural policing grants, that we put together in a single pot—and he will know that we have confirmed that we shall roll those forward for next year and that we have given the indicative levels for years 2010 and 2011. He will know that a review of the police formula is taking place and, doubtless, the comments that he made will be fed into the review to ensure that they are taken account of in any revised police formula for the next comprehensive spending review period.

Vernon Coaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. In this debate, I have tried to avoid saying—apart from in my opening remarks—that police numbers have gone up and crime has gone down, because although that is true in Dorset—there are more officers, community support officers and staff, and crime has fallen—it is also true of every constituency. Notwithstanding that, there are issues with how the funding formula works. I have tried hard, together with the Home Secretary and colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to ensure that this financial settlement provides stability in difficult times. The vast majority of responses—we had far fewer this year—asked us to ensure that we implement the funding amounts that we said would be introduced in 2009-10 to provide that stability. After 2010-11, we will enter the new comprehensive spending review period, and that is when we can try to address some of the concerns about the funding formula.
	The hon. Lady has raised some of the issues with the formula, and other hon. Members have raised others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised issues that affect Leicestershire and the east midlands. All those matters require discussion and review, and we have to try to find a way forward. People come at the issue from the point of view of their area—rightly, because they represent that area. But as the Minister, I have to see the issue from a national perspective. We are trying to be fair to police forces in every area, and the fairest way to achieve that is to provide the stability that is achieved in this settlement.

David Ruffley: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive speech. I want to begin my remarks on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition by expressing the sentiment that the police in this country do a very difficult and often very dangerous job on our behalf, and I pay tribute to their service. The police need resources from the Government, and indeed the taxpayer, to discharge their duties in upholding law and order. That is why this debate is so important to us all.
	Last year's crime figures showed that violent crime has risen by almost 80 per cent. in the past decade. Crime has not increased in every category in that period, but violent crime certainly has and that causes great concern to the public. In addition, the economic downturn has placed even greater strain on already tight police budgets. Sadly, the analysis from the Home Office that predicted a rise in crime as the economy worsened has been borne out by the latest quarterly crime figures. In the last year, burglaries have risen by 4 per cent., while fraud and forgery are up by about 16 per cent. and the number of street robberies committed at knife point have increased by 18 per cent.
	This year's settlement is the second part of the three-year 2007 comprehensive spending review. Excluding additional grants for counter-terrorism and other specific grants, the police settlement increase will be 2.7 per cent. this year, as the Minister said. A total of 20 police authorities will receive the lowest increase, of 2.5 per cent., and the Minister mentioned that there was a bigger-than-average increase for the West Midlands authority.
	There is no doubt that the police grant settlement is extremely tight, as the Minister would be the first to accept. Last year, the Association of Police Authorities said that the three-year settlement was one of the "tightest for many years". In its submission to the 2007 CSR, the joint APA and ACPO expenditure forecasting group said that there would be a funding gap, even with an annual grant increase of 2.7 per cent. The group's most optimistic assumptions suggested a funding gap by 2010-11 that would be in the region of £660 million. Using less optimistic assumptions, the group calculated that the gap could be as high as £996 million.
	The economic downturn has had an adverse impact on the financial position of police authorities. The collapse of Icelandic banks has wiped out about £95 million of police authority reserves, according to information that I have received from the APA. Lower interest rates of course mean that there is less investment income for police authorities, and proceeds from asset sales are lower in a depressed market. The Gloucestershire police authority, for example, estimated in January that the current grant settlement and economic conditions mean that it could lose up to around 60 police officers and 28 PCSOs, as well as 50 police staff posts.
	The estimates used by the expenditure forecasting group assume that the police precept on council tax would increase up to that maximum of 5 per cent., but the Minister for Local Government announced in a statement on 28 November that seven police authorities, including Cheshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire, would face precept increase caps of 3 per cent. in 2009-10. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will confirm that those authorities will receive less than the 5 per cent. precept cap.
	Of course, Her Majesty's Opposition oppose excessive increases in council tax, especially in these dire economic times. The Minister will be very well aware that some police forces with historically low police precepts believe that they have no alternative but to seek more revenue from local council tax payers. Does the Minister think that in some police force areas there is a public demand—not a councillor demand—for an increase in locally funded police spending above the cap limit? Has he received any representations from members of the public along those lines?
	In last year's debate, the Minister's predecessor said that he expected the 2.7 per cent. growth in the police force grant to apply to this year as well, and the Minister has confirmed that today. However, I should like to hear his views on the pre-Budget report statement of 24 November, when the Chancellor announced
	"that the Government will now find an additional £5 billion of efficiencies in 2010-11"—[ Official Report, 24 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 489.]
	On a point of clarification, will the Chancellor's demand for extra efficiency affect the 2.7 per cent. increase? I have seen minutes from Lincolnshire police authority and the Met that express the concern that they might be expected to find extra efficiency savings at short notice. Will the Minister clarify the position in relation to that efficiency target? The 2007 CSR set a target for police authorities to make 9.3 per cent. efficiency savings over three years, so will the Minister say whether police authorities are still expected to meet that target? Alternatively, is there a new target—explicit or otherwise—that he wants them to work to, as a result of the catastrophic downturn in the economy and in the fortunes of the Government finances since the CSR statement for the three-year period that we are currently in was made?
	I should also like to hear the Minister's views on some other statements by the Chancellor, who recently announced plans to bring forward £3 billion of capital spending to assist the economic recovery. How much of that accelerated capital expenditure has been channelled into the policing sector, in its widest definition? Many people in the police authorities believe that accelerated local investment could assist improvement in the police estate and also support the local construction industry.
	I turn now to some of the minutiae of how the police grant is distributed. The calculation is notoriously complex, and is based on five separate components. The first, the needs-based formula, is easily the most important and is otherwise known in the trade as the principal formula. Its main determinant is the projected resident population, which is then adjusted to take into account several "police crime top-ups" that adjust the main principal formula to take into account socioeconomic and demographic factors that may impact on crime levels. Those factors include how many licensed bars, people in long-term unemployment, daytime residents or residents in terraced accommodation there are in an area, as well as its population sparsity.
	Secondly, in coming to a grant settlement, the Home Office will also apply additional rule 1. I will not detain the House on the minute working of that rule, important though it is. It affects the grant provision for South Wales police and redistributes it to other police authorities in Wales.
	Thirdly, the Home Secretary will apply additional rule 2. In the past, the Home Secretary distributed specific grants such as the rural policing grant, the forensic grant and the initial police learning and development programme grant. Ministers decided to amalgamate those grants, so that police authorities would have more control over how a number of those funds were used; that was sensible. The distribution of those amalgamated moneys under the additional rule is determined by the principal formula. Fourthly, the Home Office will distribute specific grants. I will not repeat what the Minister said, but there is, of course, a separate pot for counter-terrorism. He also referred to the crime fighting fund and the ring-fencing of funds for neighbourhood policing, all of which we support.
	Finally, the police grant floors are applied. The introduction of the principal formula in 1995 was designed to reflect the resource needs of police forces. However, to ensure that the introduction of the formula did not leave forces facing widespread financial instability, floors have been introduced. They guarantee that each police force receives a minimum percentage increase in the police budget, and we heard something about that from the Minister. Notwithstanding his statement, there remains serious concern among police authorities and police forces, in all parts of the country, about how the police grant formula is calculated; the Minister understands that concern because he is a well-informed and listening Minister.
	The floors mean that forces cannot receive an increase below 2.5 per cent., even if the principal formula has determined that they do not require such a level of funding. Equally, a police force that should, according to the formula, receive a higher amount will have its grant scaled downwards. As the Flanagan report illustrated, using 2007-08 figures, that meant, at the extreme ends, that the West Midlands force had its grant scaled down by 11 per cent., or £48 million in nominal terms. Bedfordshire received 6 per cent., and Thames Valley police 4 per cent.—less than they would have done if the formula was applied in its raw form. The funds that are taken away from one force are given to another, and that has meant that some forces, such as Northumbria, have received over 12 per cent. more.
	Her Majesty's Opposition welcome the removal of the ceiling, which the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), announced last year when he was Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. However, I think that all of us—this might even extend to the Minister, judging from his comments—remain less than clear about the future for grant floors. It is worth reminding ourselves of what Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report on the future of policing said of grant floors:
	"If we are to get the best performance return for our investment over the lean times ahead"—
	how prescient Sir Ronnie was; he said that in February 2008, before the credit crunch—
	"we must start to deal with these anomalies."
	He was referring to the floors. He went on to propose the following:
	"I think it prudent that, from that point on, there should be a staged relaxation of the 'floors and ceilings' factors which dampen changes in allocations, possibly combined with special consideration for those few Forces which would face the most significant reductions in funding"
	as a result of that relaxation.
	The Home Affairs Committee supported Sir Ronnie's proposal. It produced an excellent report, "Policing in the 21st Century", and I see that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), is present. The report was thoughtful, and it avoided party politicking and cheap points. Neither he nor I indulge in that kind of business when we are talking about the serious matter of policing the United Kingdom. The report said:
	"We support Sir Ronnie Flanagan's recommendation for full application of the police funding formula at the next Spending Review."
	Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will implement that proposal, and will he give us his detailed thoughts on it? The Select Committee and Sir Ronnie—an independent adviser to the Home Secretary—think that it is a good idea. Where are we on that?
	In November, in a written ministerial statement relating to the settlement that we are considering, the Home Office said:
	"Our promised review of the funding formula before the next CSR is already under way with active collaboration from the police community."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 163WS.]
	That is reassuring, but the House would be grateful for a bit more specificity on how far that review has gone. Will the Minister show a bit of ankle, to use a colloquialism, and share a bit more detail on how far he has got with that review? Will he say when we might expect an interim announcement on where the Government have got to? Again, this is not a matter of party politics; all of us with a concern about policing need to hear the Minister say more about the future for the formula on the record.
	With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something about population figures, because I think that that is an area of technical inadequacy with which all Members on both sides of the House have problems. On 27 November 2007, the then Minister for Borders and Immigration, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), told the Home Affairs Committee that the funding formula used to allocate money to the police for 2008 to 2010 would draw on 2004 national population projections
	"simply because that is the best available data."
	Population projection figures form an integral part of the policing formula, as we all know, so is it really acceptable that the budget that we are debating is distributed according to a formula that is fed with data from 2004? I know that the Minister cannot wave a magic wand and get a sub-national version of a census for certain areas, or even a national census before the due date, but he might want to share some of the thinking about the inadequacy of the data, to which his former Home Office colleague, by implication, 'fessed up and drew our attention.

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have heard her talk in many forums, not least fairly recently on Radio 4, about her constituency and the problems that she outlines. She is a doughty and persistent debater on that point, drawing to the attention of Ministers what needs to be done for her constituency—and there are others in the same position.
	The second point that the hon. Lady raises is also tremendously important. I pay tribute to the Minister, because this time last week, in a debate held in Westminster Hall on the Thames Valley police force area, he said something interesting in response to a question from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). It was along the lines—we have new information from the Minister—that the PNB could be talked to by the Minister. I paraphrase his words. He undertook to have a word about what the PNB was doing in relation to the south-east allowance. Like the hon. Lady, I wonder whether the Minister could give us an update on any discussions that he or his officials have had since last Wednesday in relation to the PNB and the south-east allowance. That is hugely important for all Members in that region. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of that point, so that I can remind the Minister of what he said last Wednesday.
	According to ACPO, police forces in Kent, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire have suffered particularly from underfunding. By "particularly" I mean that they have gone out of their way to send briefing to me on these issues, which other police force areas also face. The problem that they have is the gap between predicted and real population figures. Their concerns were drawn together in a presentation given by Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell to the Home Office migration impacts forum on 16 July 2008. There was also a report in  The Sunday Times on 27 January last year, in which Kent police observed that the total additional cost caused by immigration at that time stood at £34 million over the three years to that date.
	The extra costs of immigration have not been fully recognised in the funding settlement. The chief constable of Cambridgeshire famously gave oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. It strikes me that that Committee teases out some interesting evidence and findings, which provide those who scrutinise Ministers with a great deal of ammunition. Chief Constable Spence said:
	"We have had only a 0.3 per cent. increase in the way the formula operated this year"—
	it was 2007 when she gave evidence. She went on:
	"There is nothing within government to be able to respond to the rapid changes that have happened. That was where the problems arose. The funding formulas are not rapid and flexible enough to deal with change."
	Even the former Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said in oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee at the end of 2007 that
	"the Government collectively is very slow in responding to large growths of population over a particular short period of time".
	That was refreshing candour from the Minister's predecessor, but we need to hear from the Minister today what has been done. He made that statement at the end of 2007, and there is something on the record about technical changes. We need to know whether it is just down to the Home Office or to the Home Office together with other Departments to get this sorted.
	The costs to police forces caused by migration, and the translation costs flowing from that, are an extra specific cost of policing. Under a freedom of information request that I issued to forces in United Kingdom, among the 44 forces that responded, there had been a 63 per cent. increase in the cost to those forces of providing interpretation and translation services. In Kent, there had been a 30 per cent. increase, from about £320,000 in 2003-04 to more than £422,000 in 2007-08. In Thames Valley, there has been a whacking 127 per cent. increase in that period. In my constituency in Suffolk, there has been an 86 per cent. increase in translation and interpretation costs in that period—from £113,000 to £210,000.
	A report by KPMG in 2007 concluded that Cambridgeshire required an additional 100 police officers to cover the additional work load generated by policing foreign nationals—that was their definition, not ours. The report, "The changing demography of Cambridgeshire", September 2007, is published by Cambridgeshire constabulary. The methodology behind the funding formula will mean that an additional work load is not being taken into account when these grant moneys are calculated.
	On 11 June 2008, the Department for Communities and Local Government published a cross-departmental migration impacts plan that sets up a transitional impacts migration fund from 2009-10. Although the report acknowledged the cost to policing, it was not clear to me whether police authorities could apply for money from the new fund to mitigate the cost of immigration. That was until I heard the Minister's remarks earlier in today's debate. For the sake of clarity, can he explain how police authorities can apply for that money? Is there any limit on the amount they can apply for? When can they apply for it? What criteria need to be met? Above all, we need a clear statement of what the review status of the funding formula will be before the next comprehensive spending review starts its progress inside government. Will a new, more dynamic projected population methodology be utilised—yes, no or maybe?
	The Flanagan report said:
	"The ability of the Funding Formula to predict aspects of complex protective services, such as serious and organised crime, needs to be considered more closely and I would urge the Funding Formula Working Group to review this further."
	That is my real concern, as that is not always flagged up in debates such as this. We have heard about neighbourhood policing, which is hugely important for level 1, but let us not forget level 2 and level 3 resourcing, as Sir Ronnie Flanagan urges.
	The Bill that the Minister and I are spending many enjoyable mornings and afternoons this month debating in Committee Room 11 refers to mandation powers relating to collaboration arrangements between forces in England and Wales. Part of the debate tomorrow relates to the level 2 gap in protective services, which is acknowledged by the Government, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Opposition and everyone else, but it is not clear to me how the funding formula and the statement from the Minister take account of the resource implications that specific forces mention when they are trying to improve their policy and operational response to serious and organised crime across county and national borders.
	In his final report, Sir Ronnie stated in paragraph 2.61 that
	"the Funding Formula will need to ensure that the capacity to deal effectively with protective services in terms of deterrence, intelligence-gathering and specialist, proactive capability is built into funding arrangements."
	Will the Minister comment on that? Will his funding review, not just the statement in the House today, say something on Sir Ronnie's point about protective services?
	I know that other hon. Members wish to make a contribution, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. There is the added cost of dealing with alcohol-related crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on the Front Bench has done much valuable work in drawing attention to the huge policing cost of alcohol-related crime, as has the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, in the report to which I referred earlier.
	The most recent British crime survey, from July last year, stated that 45 per cent. of all victims of violence described their assailant as being under the influence of alcohol at the time. There is a wealth of evidence from chief constables as well. Chief Constable Stephen Otter of Cornwall and Devon Constabulary, said that since 2004-05 there has been a
	"fairly significant increase in the proportion of violent crime where we can be absolutely sure there is an alcohol-related aspect".
	Indeed, a Cabinet Office review as far back as 2003 said that, on average, it costs £59 more to process an arrestee who has committed an alcohol-related offence than a comparable arrestee whose offence is not alcohol-related. I am sure that the figure is a lot higher if the figures that we have all seen on the costs of bureaucracy and process are anything to go by.
	There is a problem with the 24-hour licensing laws. Is the Minister considering Her Majesty's Opposition's innovative, radical and much-needed call for discretion to be given to local authorities in new legislation so that they can decide how the 24-hour licensing rules are applied in their areas? The policing formula does not take into account the extra cost of officers trained by forces around London who move to work in the Met; that was the subject of our debate last week, and we have heard about the allowance for the south-east.
	In conclusion, in its own right the grant settlement is tight, and we understand why. Given the additional pressures from the economic collapse that this country is experiencing, police authorities face and will face severe financial pressures if they just maintain the current levels of service to local people. We have to make sure that the current structure for distributing the police grant is robust and fair. As I hope I have made clear, there are serious concerns about how the funding formula operates. The review of the police funding arrangements in advance of the next comprehensive spending review provides an excellent opportunity to address the deficiencies, to which I and other hon. Members have drawn attention, in the current distribution process. I look forward to the Minister's response to our challenge to him—that is to explain his current thinking.

Keith Vaz: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who is shadow police Minister. I probably agreed with almost everything that he said. Either I am on the wrong side of the House or he is; I cannot decide who is in the right place. On behalf of members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who are not here, I thank him for his kind words about the Committee's report, "Policing in the 21st Century".
	I have had conversations with the hon. Gentleman about the report; he told me that he had read it with great interest. I know that the Minister has as well, and we look forward to the Government's response and to the Minister's appearance before us to answer questions about it. There is absolutely no point in such kind words being said about the report, and its being generally well received by the Government and the Opposition, if our recommendations are not implemented. We look forward to that process happening.
	I repeat what I said in my brief intervention on the Minister. He knows that I am a great fan of his. Since he has taken on his portfolio, he has been very willing to discuss policing issues with all Members of the House, especially members of the Select Committee. The way in which the Government dealt with the whole process is a good model for the future. If I can be partisan for a moment, I should say that when the Minister announced that Leicestershire was going to be capped, there was great worry among Members from all parties from the city and county, who had been concerned about the possibility of the cap. The Minister for Local Government, who was here at the beginning of the debate, had meetings with those Members and the now Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the police Minister's predecessor. The Minister for Local Government listened to our points about the special case of Leicestershire, and I am pleased to say that he accepted that case. Far too often, Governments make decisions and say that they want to consult but do not do so; this Government and these Ministers, however, have shown that they are prepared to consult and listen.
	Leicestershire is aware that, in a sense, the party is over. There are no unlimited funds available for policing. I shall not repeat the statistics mentioned by the Minister and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, but there has been a large increase in the police force budget in the past 10 years. There have been more police officers on the beat and more police community support officers—a role that we invented. The increase has been extremely important and positive. The overall allocation this year is £8 billion-plus and a few hundred thousand here and there, which is a huge amount of money. In Leicestershire, we welcome the 2.8 per cent. increase that we are to have, because that will allow us to continue the services that we provide.
	I wish to make only three points during my brief contribution. Originally, I thought that this debate would last an hour and a half—hence my glares at both Minister and shadow Minister. I then realised that there were another two hours to go. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am not going to speak for that whole period, because other Members wish to participate and I am sure that there will be a winding-up from the Minister.
	My first point is about alcohol-related crime, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned. I make no apology for repeating this point every time we have a debate on policing. The hon. Gentleman gave the figure: 45 per cent. of victims of violent crime have said that the perpetrator's behaviour was either influenced by or had connections to the drinking of alcohol. If we talk to any police officer of any rank about what happens in town centres, especially on Friday and Saturday evenings, not only in big cities but in small towns, we will hear about the results of alcohol-related crime. Why on earth should we allow a situation to continue in which we know the cause of the crime and what is happening, and all we do is spend more and more taxpayers' money on trying to address an issue that the Government can deal with?
	I know that there have been a number of Government initiatives, and I welcome what the Home Secretary has said on many occasions about alcohol-related crime. However, the Government should go that little step further and try to do something more about the supermarkets. Why do I say that? The fact is that there is ample evidence to suggest that supermarkets are underselling. Pubs and clubs sell alcohol at a higher price. At this point, I am normally interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who is chairman of the all-party beer group. He is not here, however, perhaps because it is lunch time and his group is meeting—I do not know. I am casting aspersions on him, and I did not tell him that I would mention him. Anyway, he jumps up and defends the pubs.
	I want to ask what we are going to do about the very low prices for alcohol in supermarkets. That is a big problem. In its report, the Select Committee made specific reference to floor pricing, and we asked the Government to consider the issue. That may have been a recommendation; the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has popped in and may remember precisely what we said. Nevertheless, we felt that floor pricing was the only way to stop people, especially young people, from going into supermarkets and getting tanked up on very cheap alcohol bought under the promotions that every single supermarket in the country is running at this very moment. If anyone leaves the Chamber now and goes to any supermarket anywhere in the vicinity of Westminster, they will see those promotions. Unless we deal with that issue, it will continue to be a major problem for this country.

Keith Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note and will respond. As yet, we have not received a full response from the Government on this issue; we hope that it will come shortly.
	We hope that urgent action can be taken on this problem, as it can be solved. It will have an impact on the Minister's budget. We have great sympathy with him; we know that he does not get up in the morning and think of a figure that he is going to allocate to local police authorities all over the country. We know that he has to bargain and negotiate with the Treasury. How better to do that than with an array of statistics and initiatives that show that the Home Office is seeking to bring down the cost of policing?
	My second point is about police pay. I am pleased with how the Government have handled this issue over the past few months. I never again want to be part of a demonstration where thousands of police officers, who do not have the right to strike, are forced to demonstrate against a Government who have worked with them in such close partnership over so many years. That was a terrible situation. I am glad that over the past few months the Home Office has begun proper and appropriate negotiations with the police and has given them not only a pay settlement that they deserve but the framework for dealing with these issues in future.
	On Saturday, I was present at a march with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), when 100,000 British citizens marched through the centre of London. Police officers were there, although there were not a huge number. There was a moment during that demonstration when things nearly went wrong, when several young people, who are very passionate about the situation in Sri Lanka, decided to sit down on Westminster bridge and not move. The way in which the police handled that very difficult situation was absolutely superb. They persuaded the young people to get off the bridge and allow it to be reopened. That takes quality policing. In order to get quality policing, we have to pay police officers the amount of money that is appropriate to their skills. Please let us continue in that vein in future. Let us negotiate, so that we never reach a situation where they have to start demonstrating on the streets of London.
	My final point concerns new technology. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little about the legal action that the Home Office has instituted against the company that provided the so-called police portal, which, of course, does not work. We all want the computerisation of the police to happen. We would love to see a situation whereby the police in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire and the Metropolitan police were able to access one set of information through one police portal. I think that that was the intention of the National Police Improvement Agency, but it just did not happen. We have probably wasted a huge amount of money on this issue. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening, because it is important that we spend our money wisely, especially in the current economic climate.
	Our report mentioned several examples of where Government investment in new technology would make a huge difference not only to the overall cost of policing in future but, more importantly, to the efficiency of local police officers. That means investment in hand-held computers. At the moment, there are 20,000 such devices in the country, and the Government have committed £75 million for another 30,000. However, the Committee says that there is no reason why every single police officer in the country should not have a hand-held device. The time savings are huge. When Bedfordshire police authority bought these devices for its police officers, the amount of time that they spent outside the police station increased, and the time that they spent filling in forms and doing paperwork decreased. The amount of time that they spent processing cases increased as well. BlackBerry has told us—I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go out and buy BlackBerry because it has given us this information—that its research, which it presented to the Committee during our inquiry, suggests that if every police officer had a BlackBerry, it would give them an extra full hour of time outside the police station.
	A lot has been said about the report by Sir Ronnie Flanagan, which is excellent; that is why the Committee adopted most of its recommendations. He talks about new technology and saving time by cutting red tape. Of course, Ministers always tell us that there is going to be a bonfire of red tape. Jan Berry has been appointed as the "cutting of red tape" tsar—whatever her title is; bureaucracy tsar, perhaps—and the Committee looks forward to examining her in the near future. The fact is that we need real progress on cutting bureaucracy. That is evident if one goes to any police station in the country and talks to any custody sergeant, as I did when the hon. Member for Newark invited me to visit Newark police station. I pay tribute to all the police officers there. Unfortunately, there was a minor mishap when I thought that a fridge was the place where they kept their lunch, but it was in fact the fridge for DNA samples. Even Back-Bench MPs make gaffes, not just Ministers and Mayors of London. We pay tribute to all that police officers have done and say to them, "We want to increase your time outside the police station doing policing work."
	I urge the Minister to take the plunge and invest in new technology. When the Government make that decision, please could we have central procurement, so that Lincolnshire police buy the same equipment as the police in Staffordshire, and the police in Staffordshire buy the same equipment as the police in Bristol or London? That would mean that we do not have problems about whether people are speaking to each other properly and appropriately, and passing on information. In many high-profile cases, especially concerning children, people talk about sharing information after the event inquiries have taken place.

Keith Vaz: This House is expert on these matters, so I am not going to challenge the hon. Gentleman's judgment in any way. He is absolutely right. There is a need to look at those processes to see whether we can create what he alluded to.
	In conclusion, to allow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) to raise his point of order, I thank the Minister for his allocation so far. We know that things are going to be tough. We may not be thanking him next year, especially in Leicestershire if a cap is put on us, but there are ways in which we can cut costs and invest in the future. Please let us do this and make better what we know we already have—a really world-class police service.

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but it is on a matter of the utmost national importance.
	I would like to raise the issue of a judgment made at 1.45 pm today by Lord Justice Thomas in the case of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident currently being held at Guantanamo Bay who has made an accusation of British involvement in torture inflicted on him while being held in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Morocco. The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case and that British agencies may have been complicit—but, most important of all, that the United States Government have threatened our High Court that if it releases this information the US Government will withdraw their intelligence co-operation with the United Kingdom on matters of security. The judge has ruled that there is a strong public interest that this information is put in the public domain even though it is politically embarrassing.
	To quote directly from the judgment—I will make this as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker—
	"It is plainly right that the details of the admissions in relation to the treatment of Binyam Mohamed as reported by officials of the United States Government should be brought into the public domain...we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials...relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be. We had no reason...to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports."
	Another part of the report goes on to say that the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that this threat will still remain under President Obama's new Government.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, can I request that you make representations, preferably to the Foreign Secretary, or to the Home Secretary, to come to this House today to make an urgent statement on the involvement of British agencies in torture overseas, and on the right of the United States Government to block a British court from disclosing information given to it?

Patrick Mercer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this alleged piece of bribery, bullying or whatever it is that has just been discussed, at the same time that a statement is made by a Cabinet Minister, may we also have a thorough understanding of what the American regime would like us to do with non-British detainees in the former Guantanamo Bay prison?

Paul Holmes: This police grant statement comes in the second year of a three-year settlement, and in that sense it does not contain any surprises. It remains, however, as was pointed out last year, the tightest police grant settlement for a decade, and as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities pointed out last year, there is a danger of an overall £1 billion shortfall in police funding by 2011. One of the things that they referred to was not just the proportion of money coming from the Government, but the effect of the Government's constant rate-capping and direction on levels of council tax. The Minister and I debated that issue yesterday in a Public Bill Committee. A MORI opinion poll last year found that 87 per cent. of respondents said that they would be willing to pay more if it went towards direct local policing. Whether we would get quite the same response now that the recession is starting to build up is another matter, but, as we argued yesterday in Committee, that choice should be left to the local community and local police authorities under a directly elected system, rather than being decided by diktat by a Minister in London.
	All the points made in last year's debate remain accurate today, and I will not rehearse most of them in detail because they remain exactly the same. Last year, we discussed the amount of police time spent on paperwork, the increase in violent crime, the lack of adequate technology and the constant creation of new offences—more than 3,500 since 1997. A number of those points have already been touched on in today's debate. On technology, the issue of hand-held devices that would save police time has already been raised. It surprises me that the staff who work for the council housing department in Chesterfield who do electrical repairs, plumbing and so on are all equipped with such devices, and they are all linked to the central control office through them. The logistics of everything they carry on their vehicles to repair council houses are logged and are readable in the central office in Chesterfield, so that when a call comes in for a repair it is not the nearest vehicle that is sent but the one with the right parts. If the staff of the council housing department can have that sort of technology, which makes them so much more efficient, flexible and cost-effective, it seems incredible that the police in Chesterfield cannot have the same.
	The Minister may well say later that pilot schemes are rolling out and developing that technology in various parts of the country, but like so many experiments with pilot schemes, we have to ask when that process becomes universal. It is proven technology, the benefits of which can be seen even in a council housing repair department. Why has it not been rolled out throughout police forces in the UK?
	As a side issue, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned central purchasing. Contrary to our debate in Committee yesterday, I do see an argument for a degree of central collaboration or direction in that case. One police officer whom I talked to in Chesterfield told me that many police forces buy varieties of motor vehicles because there is no custom-built standard for the British police, unlike the way in which American police forces tend to have a standard police cruiser. He told me that some of the computer devices provided for use in cars cannot be mounted on the dashboard because there is such a mish-mash of purchasing policy. Vehicles are often too small and not suitable for such new technology. The delivery of technology raises some issues that need be considered, but it is such a basic process in this day and age, it is hard to understand why the technology has not been rolled out across all 43 police authorities.

Paul Holmes: I thank the Minister for that clarification. It would be churlish to say better late than never, but none the less that is now on the record.
	On the constant creation of new offences—3,500 or more in 10 years—we are in the process of discussing the 66th Home Office Bill in this area, with the Public Bill Committee considering it starting last week, and it will create a variety of new offences. One proposal that was debated on Second Reading, and which I mentioned in Committee last week, is the fine of up to £500 that is available for people found drinking alcohol in a public place where drinking is prohibited. The current Bill proposes to increase that figure to £2,500, but as we clarified in Committee and on Second Reading, although the maximum fine is £500 no one has ever been fined more than £250, and very few have been fined more than £100. That is symptomatic of a process where legislation is constantly used to grandstand—to send messages in pursuit of media headlines—but has no practical benefit to the front-line police officer. In fact, it can be quite the reverse if it is simply throwing extra regulation and paperwork at police officers on the beat, who have far better things on which to spend their time.
	Legislation on cut-price alcohol sales in supermarkets, however, which the Chair of the Select Committee referred to earlier, would be a much more beneficial and effective process. Regrettably, however, such provisions are missing from the Bill that we are discussing in Committee. I have been on patrol with front-line officers and seen them dealing with the public effects of alcohol, and they would welcome the effects of such legislation far more than a measure that the Minister said was simply intended to send a message—effectively, to get a headline instead of having a direct, practical effect.
	All of last year's debate remains relevant, although we do not need to return to two parts of it. The current Minister has not had to announce a cut in the numbers of police community support officers from 24,000 to 16,000, as was announced last year, and he has not had to take the flak for refusing to implement in full a police pay award. That happened last year, although officers remain demoralised and angry about it to this day.
	What are the new issues that affect policing? The Association of Police Authorities observed that the next four years will be very difficult. It gave several reasons for that, one of which is the tight funding regime in place between now and 2011, which we knew about from the start of the three-year settlement last year. There may also be cuts after that; we cannot know for certain, but it certainly looks increasingly likely. We are told that many authorities and chief constables face stark choices over the next four years, including inevitable reductions in police officer numbers. We have seen that happen in some authorities already last year and this year.
	At the same time, however, with tighter, sometimes decreasing, budgets and a reduction in police officer numbers, there is a constant expansion in local demand and in the expectations of what the police can deliver. Some of that is a result of modern society. Today, almost universally, people have mobile phones, and they are much quicker to ring the police—or their councillor or MP—to make a complaint. They are much more likely, especially at odd hours of the day, to get on the internet and send an e-mail to all and sundry, including the police, councillors and the local MP, demanding action. In the past, they would have had to use a land-line to ring an office hoping to get someone on the other end, and a lot of people did not do that. The 24-hour media that we have these days constantly hype up crime issues, which creates a lot more pressure and expectation from below about what the police can do. Those rising expectations will only increase.
	The Government have the best intentions, which we support, but they are also increasing that pressure. For example, a welcome policy is the idea that everybody in a police beat area, usually corresponding to a council ward, should have access to a mobile phone number that should in theory be answered fairly promptly by the beat officer or PCSO who has that equipment. As that service becomes more publicised and available, it will inevitably mean far more calls from members of the public, putting more demands on the police. If the police cannot meet those demands, it will create a vicious circle of frustration, with the public saying, "There's no point. The police aren't doing anything. They never answer." At a time when budgets are tighter, and when budgets and police numbers might fall over the next few years, there will be more and more pressure from the public for more action.
	Another matter that we discussed in Committee yesterday was the community call for action, which was provided for in the Police Act 2006 and is about to be implemented. When members of the public know about that, they will beat a path to the door of their local councillor, whether for their parish, town, district, borough, city or unitary area—the public do not draw such distinctions—and say, "I have heard that under the law, you have to take action if I raise an issue with you about vandalism, burglary, nuisance, speeding traffic" or whatever. All those councillors will rush off to the appropriate bodies—crime and disorder reduction partnerships, police authorities and so on—saying that they want action. Many of them already do that. With tightening budgets and falling police officer numbers, what will often be the answer over the next few years? "We haven't got the resources to deal with that." On top of that, we have increasing Government direction of national priorities and roles, which could clash with the requirement for police authorities to have regard to the views of the local community.

Simon Hughes: It strikes me that given the pressures that my hon. Friend has outlined, and the fact that a lot of people will sadly lose their jobs in the coming year, there may be people who are confident, able and willing to be employed by police authorities as civilians, but who would not be willing to become police officers. They could help to do a lot of jobs, provided that the budgets were available.

Paul Holmes: Indeed, and over recent years a lot of authorities have brought more civilians in to release police officers from desk work and get them out on the beat. The more the budget tightens, however, the less possible that becomes.
	As we have heard, another factor to consider is population shifts, which may well worsen, especially those that arise from waves of migrant workers. When the EU enlarged recently the Government predicted how many people would come from Poland and various eastern European states, but their predictions were well under the number who came in reality. The Government said that they expected a lot of those migrant workers to come over here and work for two, three or four years to raise money, then go back to start their own businesses or when the economy changed, as in the case of the recession that is building up.
	The speed of those population fluctuations caused major problems for councils, the health service, schools and the police. The then Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said in last year's debate, "Yes, that is a very good point, and we should look at it." The present Minister said the same this afternoon, so when will the action come? What reassurance can the Minister give that there will be fairly prompt action on a matter that has never been dealt with—getting resources quickly to the police, councils, education authorities and others to deal with rapid population fluctuations? Those fluctuations often involve people who have English as a second language, which is another issue entirely. The police in Lincolnshire, for example, have been caused major problems by the soaring cost of their interpretation budget because of the eastern European groups who are working there in agriculture. There are also many such examples in urban areas, and various problems are developing.

Simon Hughes: That is a really big issue for boroughs such as mine as well as for rural areas, as my hon. Friend said. It would be really helpful if Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government said that they will take the new information from the Office for National Statistics and put a new, up-to-date system in place by the time of the next three-year grant allocation at the latest. We have not yet heard that, and it must be a minimum demand and expectation.

Paul Holmes: That is a very welcome commitment, but it is difficult to see how the Government can react quickly enough to deal with certain population flows. I have spoken to the staff of schools in inner-city areas of Birmingham and London that have had problems. With rapidly fluctuating pupil numbers, it is difficult to get the money flowing fast enough to make a difference rather than provide it two years later. However, I hope that the Government will be able to take action on that.
	Another major issue is the levelling-off of police authorities' potential to make cash efficiencies. The Home Office document "Efficiency and Productivity Strategy for the Police Service 2008-11" states:
	"The financial climate of the next three years will be tougher and achieving significant cashable improvements in efficiency and productivity over 2008-11 will therefore be central to delivering the Police Service's mission of delivering community safety."
	However, the APA points out that in the past 10 years more than £2 billion of efficiency savings have been made, most of which have been recycled into meeting new police demands and supporting the delivery of the service. However, it observes that that has become increasingly difficult in the past year or two, and that in the next few years it will become almost impossible for efficiency savings to be addressed directly to dealing with budget shortfalls. It states that
	"the longer term prospects worsen considerably"
	because, added to the factors that I have listed, the recession means that there will be a loss of interest income from investments, reduced proceeds from property sales and increased costs of imported goods. It gives the specific example that uniforms, which are generally imported, and some specialist equipment that is imported have already increased in cost by 30 per cent. in the past few months, due to exchange rate changes. The council tax base is nearly static due to continued capping, and the recession is creating more low-level crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, robbery and shed breaking. All those things cause increased demands on the police.
	The most recent quarterly crime statistics, and figures released following a freedom of information request by  The Independent, show increasing crime—a widely predicted result of the recession. On 17 January,  The Independent gave the example of forces such as Greater Manchester, Suffolk, Gloucestershire and Cumbria, all of which had seen
	"increases of between 25 and 50 per cent. Lincolnshire police saw the biggest rise, a 97 per cent. increase in robbery between September and November—the most recent three-month period collated by the force—compared with the same three-month period the previous year."
	Those figures were more up to date than those that the Home Office released a month later, which raises the point that we have often made about the need for believable independent statistics. If the Government were to pass the responsibility for the figures entirely to the Office for National Statistics, that would remove all the questions about their validity and their early or late issuing for political reasons. The statistics that were produced, partly through a freedom of information request, showed a clear increase in crime at the lower level of burglary, shed breaking, robbery and so on, co-ordinating with the start of the recession. That was exactly what history told us was likely.
	A rise in crime produces more work for the police and puts more strain on them. It means that they need more manpower and potentially more overtime, yet all that comes at a time of tightening and eventually decreasing budgets and falling police numbers. Police authorities need some specific answers. First, will the specific central Government funding for PCSOs, and for the substantial number of police who are funded by direct special grants rather than the general grant, remain in place after 2011, to which date it is guaranteed?
	Secondly, the Government brought forward £3 billion of capital spending to assist in economic recovery, but none of it went towards improvements in the police estate. We are told that the Government are preparing a further tranche of that funding as part of the forthcoming Budget. Do the Government have any further plans to release capital investment into the police estate? That would boost the construction industry, create jobs and, above all, take pressure off local police authority budgets where there are dilapidated police stations that need replacing and other facilities that need improvement.
	The issues that we have considered so far apply generally to all 43 police authorities in England and Wales. However, some issues apply more to specific police authorities. For example, 15 police authorities—just under 30 per cent.—were affected by the Icelandic banking crisis. The outcome of the crisis and, therefore, its full impact, remains unclear and will be for some time. The increasing uncertainty and risk for the affected authorities is a cause of great concern, and the Government have provided support so far. Continuing Government support for repaying the loans involved is required, especially if repayment is delayed or money has to be written off as a result of what happened in Iceland.
	Another much bigger and longer-running issue affects some but by no means all police authorities, and several hon. Members referred to it earlier. It is the formula for funding police authorities. To the Government's credit, after saying that they would tackle the matter in 1997 when they came to power, they eventually introduced a fairer funding formula nearly 10 years later. However, they told the worst hit authorities that it would be years before the underfunding was made up. Telling police authorities that they were underfunded by specific amounts but that they could not have the money caused consternation. As yet, no date has been set for ending the floors and ceilings mechanisms and the underfunding of so many authorities.
	The Minister has already referred to the fact that all the police authorities in the east midlands, parts of which we both represent—in Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, the Minister's area of Nottinghamshire and my area of Derbyshire—are affected, as are many others throughout the country. He said this afternoon that the formula is being reviewed again for 2011 onwards. However, let us remember the history.
	Before 1997, the shire counties that lost out worst from the funding formula had a long-running campaign—the F40 campaign. In 1997, the Government said that they would review the position. In 2006-07, nine years later, they introduced the new formula but said that they could not provide the money that they admitted authorities needed.
	I shall be slightly parochial. Last year, Derbyshire was the fourth worst funded police authority in England and Wales. This year, it sank to third lowest, with only Suffolk and Essex in a worse position. Under the new, "fair" formula that was introduced in 2006-07, Derbyshire has lost £16 million so far. The Government say that Derbyshire needs that money to provide adequate policing, but that it cannot have it. This year, Derbyshire will lose another £5 million, and another £5 million in the subsequent year. That is equal to 3 per cent. of the force's entire budget every year and more than 160 police officers on the beat.
	Derbyshire has had to plug the gaps in the underfunding by using its reserves, but they are coming to an end. In a year or two, there will be no more reserves to plug the gap in the funding that the Government say that Derbyshire needs, but that they will not provide. It is impossible to understand why the worst funded authorities in the country, some of which, like Derbyshire, have experienced the problem for more than 20 years, must bear the brunt of a tight police grant settlement.
	Police officers and constituents in Chesterfield simply cannot understand that we are the third worst funded police authority in the country yet we must continue to be underfunded because of overall problems with the police grant.
	The Minister said that he had received only 15 representations this year—far fewer than last year. Perhaps police authorities have simply given up because they meet the same stonewalling every year. Will the Minister offer any genuine hope to the worst funded authorities, such as Derbyshire, that all the unequal funding of recent years will end? After all, the councils and fire authorities that suffered from the funding formula have had their historic problem removed and levelled out much more quickly. Why are police authorities singled out to bear the brunt of what the Government admit was an unfair formula, saying that they should have more money, but that they cannot have it?

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the police funding settlement this year. I shall focus my brief remarks on my police force area of Dyfed-Powys. Last week, in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) initiated a short debate on the subject, and I am grateful for some of the assurances that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) gave in response to it. I am also grateful for the Minister's comments today; I appreciate the steps that are being taken to ensure parity between English and Welsh forces, and the 2.5 per cent. grant floor.
	I want to impress on Ministers the deep concern among members of the Dyfed-Powys police authority and officers at various levels in the organisation. In last Wednesday's debate in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary said that he had received no representations from the authority this year on the settlement. However, I assure him that Members who represent constituencies in the area have received strong representations. That is shown not only by the fact that I am raising the matter, but by the presence of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and the intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).
	Let me reinforce some of the points that we have been trying to convey to Ministers in recent weeks. The starting point is the enormous area that the Dyfed- Powys police force coversthe largest in England and Wales, taking in the counties of Powys, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and my county of Pembrokeshire, and comprising hundreds of disparate small villages and small town communities. Hon. Members who go on holiday to mid and west Wales will be familiar with the long, slow roads in the area. That poses significant challenges to policing. Given the size of the police authority area, it is worth pointing out that Dyfed-Powys has the third smallest police force. That immediately poses a challenge to the chief constable of how to deploy personnel across such a vast area.
	Last week, in the Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary described Dyfed-Powys police authority as well resourced. Like many hon. Members, I have a six-monthly night out with my local police. On a Saturday night, the police authority does not feel especially well resourced. All it takes in my police division of Pembrokeshire is one road traffic accident, a fight outside a local nightclub and one domestic violence incident for the force to start to feel stretched.
	I want to put on record the important role that volunteers play in the police force. On my most recent Saturday night with my local police, I witnessed the important role that not only special constables, who give up their time, but volunteers in the CCTV control centre, play. We want to encourage such volunteering. There are all sorts of benefits from engaging more civilian volunteers in police operations, but the police should never have to perceive volunteers as an absolute necessity for delivering policing at busy times such as a Saturday night.
	Other factors in the Dyfed-Powys area are relevant to the discussiontourism, for example. In the summer the population swells considerably. The pressure on public services arising from a significant increase in the local population in the summer months is never fully taken into account.
	We also have an enormous coastline, which includes two major ferry ports, connecting west Wales with Ireland, at Pembroke Dock and Fishguard. We have the growing energy hub at the port of Milford Haven, with two of the UK's major oil refineries, the UK's largest fuel storage depot and the two major liquefied natural gas terminals, which will come on stream shortly. I shall say more about the LNG terminals shortly.
	Dyfed-Powys police do a remarkably good job, given their resources and the challenges they face, in holding down crime rates and reassuring the public. They have achieved some excellent scores in crime detection and bringing rates down across the full range of crimes. However, a member of the police authority told me that some of the statistics, which on the fact of it are good news stories, are
	somewhat fragile and patchy in some areas of activity.
	The force admits that some of the confidence and public satisfaction scores that it gets are not quite as good as they should be. I share the concerns that have been communicated to me by the police authority, not only about the tight settlement for this year, but about the uncertainties surrounding funding in future years and about what might happen to the rural police grant. Those concerns mean that the authority has serious questions about its ability to improve on its current scores.
	Dyfed-Powys police force has made great progress in the past few years on achieving efficiency gains. Between 2005-06 and 2007-08, it achieved efficiency savings of 9.8 million, well above its target of 7.3 million. The theory is that the force should be using those efficiencies to invest in, for example, protective services and other Government priorities. However, the force tells me that it has to use those efficiency savings just to maintain baseline services, and there is very little capacity to make improvements. The force has particular concerns about the expectations in the policing pledgeabout its ability, for example, to respond to emergency and non-emergency calls within 20 minutes on all occasions, and about the timescales in which victims of crime need to be informed. Being able to meet those expectations is challenging.
	Several hon. Members have already mentioned the rural police grant. I would like to reiterate the points that have been raised. There is concern in Dyfed-Powys police force authority about the future of the rural police grant. I am not, perhaps, expecting the Minister to say any more about that than his colleague has already said in this debate, but I would like to impress upon him the needs of rural areas and the challenges that rurality throws up. If he cannot say what the future holds for the rural police grant, I would be grateful if he could give an indication of what his thinking is on how different aspects of rurality will be taken into account in the discussions and considerations about the future of the rural police grant.
	Let me return to my point about the liquefied natural gas terminals. There is significant concern about how well protected those facilities are. Just to remind hon. Members, in the years ahead the two LNG terminals will have the capacity to import 30 per cent.almost a thirdof the UK's entire natural gas requirement. They are clearly a significant piece of national infrastructure. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that in great detail, but concern has been communicated to me about a proposed reduction in the funding for officers engaged in security work at the port of Milford Haven. I do not want to speculate about why that might be so or about where else resources might deployed. However, if the Minister receives an application from the police force in Dyfed-Powys for additional resources to support the policing of the LNG terminals, I would ask him to look favourably on that request.

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Both of us are making the point that investment in capital workssuch as new buildings and new custody suitescan improve policing quite considerably, to an extent that would be noticed and appreciated by the general public. I am talking in particular about Llandrindod Wells, where there is a scheme for a new police station with custody cells and a magistrates court, which will be integrated with an ambulance station and a fire station, so that we can have all the emergency services co-operating as one.
	Although we in the Dyfed-Powys police area accept the present settlement and understand the circumstances in which it has been made, we are not happy with it. We look forward to a review of the formula to make it work, although we view that process with trepidation. We understand that there is only one representative from Wales on the group that will review the formula. We just hope that Wales's special needs are reflected in the outcome of those considerations.

Robert Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that Slough has had many problems dealing with extra numbers and the resultant financial pressures put on many public services. No doubt Peterborough faces a very similar set of challenges.
	The impact of population growth on police services needs to be recognised, so it is only right for the police authority to be consulted on major spatial plans, for example. Support to secure resources from the planning system to meet the costs of infrastructure development is also important for the policing of the expanding Thames Valley region. All that certainly needs to be looked at. We need to think about whether section 106 money should be used to help support the additional policing infrastructure that will be necessary in the years to come as the population expands. That is worth considering. I know that at this particularly difficult time in the middle of a recession, local authorities are going jealously to guard their income from section 106 money, so it is not going to be a particularly easy nut to crack if the Minister decides to go down that particular avenue.
	With the current level of population growth, Thames Valley police estimates that their capital costs for new buildings and so forth will be about 90 millionjust to keep pace with the level of services provided now. The chief constable has said that the force will have real problems trying to generate that level of capital receipts, so it looks as thought there might be another funding gap in the future. He also estimates that the number of staff, including officers, that Thames Valley will need will have to grow to about 1,200again just to maintain the current level of policing services.
	I know that there is a link to population in the revenue support grant, but the floors and ceilings apparently mean that minimal additional revenue grant will be generated for the Thames Valley police. That needs to be looked into further. There are also other funding pressures. The Olympics, for example, is clearly going to suck in resources from the Thames Valley, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister explain how that extra resourcing might be handled and what sort of extra support a force such as Thames Valley will be able to get when it is going to have to provide so many police officers for the Olympics.
	Counter-terrorism is another important issue. I cannot speak as freely as I would like on this occasion, so all I will say is that a significant threat still remains within the Thames Valley. I know that there is a specific grant for counter-terrorism, for which we are very grateful, but the pressure is likely to get much worse before it gets better. There is the potential for extremism in Reading, Slough, High Wycombe and other centres in the Thames Valley despite all the excellent work that goes on in those local areas to combat the threat.
	I have recently been critical of the detection rates of the Thames Valley police. It is actually one of the worst performing authorities in the country in that respect. We are not doing well, and that needs to be said. However, I say it as a friend, albeit a critical friend, of the Thames Valley police. The force is doing many things particularly well, but there is enormous room for improvement on detection rates.
	I would like to say that we have a particularly good team in Reading, made up of active, responsive and forward-thinking officers and I would like to repeat the praise I expressed in last week's Westminster Hall debate for Superintendent Steve Kirk, who does a quite outstanding job across my Reading, East constituency. I have also been very pleased by the roll-out of neighbourhood policing in my constituency. It has the potential to make a real difference over time, particularly if it is coupled with a drive to reduce red tape and bureaucracy.
	The impact of all the extra money that has gone into policing over the years has to some extent been dissipated because police officers spend less and less of their time on the street performing their front-line duties. There is way too much bureaucracy put upon police officers. I have heard that from them first hand. Like many colleagues, I have been out on my mountain bike with officers in Reading, East; I have been out in the town centre in a van, and I have spoken to officers. They have told me many stories. For example, I heard about an officer arresting a shoplifter at 9.30 in the morning and then having to write off the entire shift while he processed that one person through the system. There are, of course, many more such examples that I am sure colleagues could add. If we could sort out those problems, we could get more return on the investment we make in police officers. In turn, that would massively improve the prospects of neighbourhood policing making an impact.
	As I said earlier, I am not asking for more money. I do not think that the Thames Valley police actually needs any more money today, but it may well need money in the near future. Any support in the particular areas I mentioned would, I am sure, be very welcome to the chief constable of Thames Valley police.

Stewart Jackson: I express my sincere apologies for not being present at the commencement of the debate [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have been busy writing my speech.  [Interruption.] In fact, I have been delayed due to the vicissitudes of National Express East Coast in travelling down from my constituency.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the police grant settlement for 2009-10. I pay tribute to my local police force, the Cambridgesire constabulary, and particularly to the northern basic command unit, which covers my constituency, under the leadership of Chief Superintendent Andy Hebb. They are all doing a very difficult job on behalf of my constituents.
	I want to talk about the very real funding difficulties experienced by the Cambridgeshire constabulary. Members will know that I have raised the issue on a number of occasions and that I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate in February last year on police funding in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire. Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, along with Kent and Lincolnshire, are in a parlous financial position. They urgently need a review of their formula allocation for the next financial year as well as, I would argue, a review for 2010-11. The allocations should be reviewed as a result of a unique set of circumstances, which I will outline to provide some background.
	Cambridgeshire is to receive a 3 per cent. increase in its formula funding allocation in 2009-10, despite the fact that it has the third lowest number of police officers per head of population in the whole of England and Wales. In the northern basic command unit, incorporating my constituency, we have actually a seen a fall in the number of full-time equivalent police officers over the last six years. Indeed, the Minister provided that information in a parliamentary answer to me on 29 January at column 828W. A table shows a fall from 215 officers per 100,000 people in 2003 to 178 in the last financial year.
	Hon. Members will be aware of my consistent lobbying over a number of years for fairer funding for Cambridgeshire. I will not rehearse all the arguments that I raised in the Adjournment debate, at which the Minister was present, but it would be apposite to refer to a number of them today, because in many respects we have not moved forward over the last year.
	Cambridgeshire has been among the five worst-funded police authorities in the last six years. Like other police authorities, it will be asked to bear real-terms cuts over the next two years at least, as well as general inflationary pressure and Home Office edicts in respect of efficiency savings, first outlined in the comprehensive spending review of 2007. As the Minister will know, the authority has little effective discretion to alter that dismal situation within the prevailing capping regime.
	I commend to the House an excellent report published in November 2007, entitled The changing demography of Cambridgeshire: implications for policing. It focused on the specific demographic, social, economic and cultural changes that face the county over the next 10 years or so, including population changes, migration from both within and outside the United Kingdom, growth in higher education numbers, issues involving Gypsies and travellers, and tourism, which is, of course, a particular issue in the Cambridge area.
	Today, however, I wish to focus on the practical impact of migrationspecifically European Union migrationon my constituency and throughout Cambridgeshire, its particular impact on crime and policing, and the financial impact that that will inevitably involve. I recently met a member of the police authority who explained to me that if a police officer in Peterborough stops an individual from, say, Lithuania or the Czech Republic in connection with the committing of a possible offenceor, indeed, if that person has been the victim of a crimethe need for translation and interpretation services can double or treble the time that it takes to process the individual.
	Cambridgeshire constabulary's recent briefing to the Migration Impacts Forum, published last month, illustrates the significance of that example. In every month of the calendar year to 31 December 2008, with the exception of January and June, more than 20 per cent. of detainees processed through the custody suite in the northern basic command unit were non-UK citizens. In the last year, across the whole force, 800 Lithuanians, more than 700 Poles and 300 Portuguese citizens have been processed, most of whom spoke little orusuallyno English.
	Use of Language Line, a telephone translation and interpretation service, increased last year from an average of 373 calls per month to 497 per month in the period up to November 2008. In the last financial year Cambridgeshire spent 1 million on translation and interpretation services, whereas in 2002 it spent only 224,000. Moreover, 50 per cent. of detainees questioned about drink-driving and disqualified driving offences in the northern basic command unit were non-UK citizens, while 84 per cent. of the 213 warrants issued by the magistrates courts in Peterborough for minor offences were issued for EU nationals.
	Ministers have known for at least three years about the impact of large-scale immigration on policing but have failed to reflect it in their funding allocations, despite the promises to listen and act delivered by this Minister, his predecessors and, indeed, the Home Secretary during Home Office questions over those three years. I concede that this is, not to put too fine a point on it, more a cock-up than a conspiracy. I do not agree that it is necessarily an issue of whether a police authority is in a predominantly Conservative or a predominantly Labour area. However, Ministers are not listening. Despite visits to Peterborough and visits by delegations consisting of senior police authority members and the chief constable, nothing has been done. Indeed, we are going backwards.
	As I made clear in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), these funding decisions are based on completely flawed population estimates, and Ministers have failed to act to correct them. On 27 November 2007, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the then immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), said that funding to 2010 would continue to be based on 2004 sub-national population data
	simply because that is the best available data.
	That is not the basis on which to make these funding decisions, because the methodology and the data are flawed.
	As was rightly pointed out by the chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Julie Spence, in evidence to the Select Committee:
	There is nothing within government to be able to respond to the rapid changes that have happened... The funding formulas are not rapid and flexible enough to deal with change.
	Similar views were expressed by the Local Government Association in its November 2007 report Estimating the scale and impacts of immigration at the local level, and in a report published by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs in the 2007-08 Session entitled The Economic Impact of Immigration.
	According to the recent Migration Impacts Forum report, the tragic murder of a young Polish man in Peterborough in September last year
	impacted heavily on constabulary resources and was made even more complex because of the language and translation issues involved.
	It gives one simple example, which is that
	over 40 Polish citizens had to be interviewed and statements taken.
	The House can imagine how resource-intensive that process was for a force that is already under-provisioned in terms of front-line police officers.
	Even without those specific migration factors, Cambridgeshire will be struggling to deliver the police service that local people deserve and need. In 2007, the Association of Police Authorities estimated that the current comprehensive spending review funding regime would result in a funding shortfall across the country of at least 831 million. In a report prepared for the police authority 18 months ago, the management consultants KPMG concluded on the basis of the Cambridgeshire constabulary's current work load that the county required at least an extra 100 officers. Let me put in context how badly underfunded my local constabulary is: just to achieve the average funding and provision of front-line officers for England and Wales Cambridgeshire would need at least 600 more police officers, at a significant revenue cost.
	Despite warm words from the Minister, who is an agreeable chapI think we can all agree on thatand several deputations from the police authority and the chief constable, we are no further forward this year. The Government continue to undercount population numbers and to underfund core police service activity. Cambridgeshire is losing more than 2 million per annum, which has a major year-on-year cumulative effect, as a result of the funding floors. The force has the fourth lowest number of police staff per head of population in England and Wales. The 2010-11 pay deals, amounting to about 2.5 per cent., mean that it will experience a real-terms cash decrease.
	I have not even discussed Cambridgeshire's capital programme. The 1.5 million to be allocated to the force in the next financial year will be only just enough to cover the vehicle replacement programme; it will not cover other key projects, such as the rebuilding of police stations in Parkside, Cambridge and Huntingdon. We are not demanding extra funds for fashionable budget headings such as protective services and counter-terrorism, or the Olympics. Thank goodness, we do not have a major problem with knife crime, gangs and guns; we do, however, require fairness and equity.
	For too long, Cambridgeshire's pleas have been ignored and the police authority short-changed, and our dedicated and professional police officers on the front line protecting us have been forced to do much more for much less. This situation is unfair, intolerable, iniquitous and ultimately unsustainable. It cannot go on. My constituents deserve better, as do those of other Cambridgeshire Members. I hope the Minister is listening, and that, for once, we have action and not just words.

James Brokenshire: This has been an interesting and informed debate. Several Members passionately expressed their feelings about policing issues, especially the current grant settlement. In common with many contributors, I would first like to record my congratulations on and praise for the work police officers do not only in my constituency, but across the country. It is always humbling to go out with the police and see the work they do at the sharp end, often in difficult circumstances. It is important to recognise that in the context of this debate, which, by necessity, focuses on funding streams rather than the practical work the police do throughout the country in protecting us and providing safety to the communities we represent.
	This debate has, of course, focused heavily on the grant settlement. It is important to recognise the changing funding arrangements and the shift in burden from direct central Government grant to local authority precept. In 1997, direct grant represented 85 per cent. of forces' revenue, but in 2006-07 the figure had fallen to 60 per cent. Therefore, an increasing proportion of the funds going to our police forces is coming from council tax payers in our areas rather than from direct grant. It is important to recognise the amount of funding that is coming directly from council tax payers, rather than from central Government.
	There have been some good and important contributions to the debate, and I wish to place on record my congratulations to the Home Affairs Committee on the work it undertakes in putting a number of important issues into the public domain, and thereby informing the general discussion and ensuring that relevant matters are given the attention they deserve. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised some important issuesfor instance, alcohol-related crime, which he and I have debated on several previous occasions. I certainly recognise the link between alcohol and violent crime and the pressures our police forces have to withstand, and the difficulties and challenges they face, in the early hours of the morning. In that context, there is an issue to do with pricing, and the right hon. Gentleman covered it well in his contribution.
	In terms of funding arrangements and the efficient use of resources, Government, and particularly Home Office, IT projects are of relevance. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East made an important point about the funding and status of the police portal and the dispute around the contract associated with that. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some further light on those issues when he responds to our debate. Other IT projects also deserve further scrutiny, such as the Pentip computer system intended to register penalty notices for disorder and other policing matters, which is over-budget and running late. It is important that we get good value for money and that procurement issues are dealt with appropriately.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) made important points on procurement and ensuring that we get good value for money and have efficiencies. I think that is recognised in all parts of the House, as is the importance of forces being able to share in certain aspects of procurement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) rightly highlighted the challenges facing many rural police forces, and in particular how population flows caused by tourism can have a big impact on the ability to police. The problems he raised to do with tourism and swells in population are shared by a number of police forces.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) made the important point that we should recognise the work of those officers who ensure safety in our community, and he commented that his area of Dyfed-Powys had been made a safer place. He also said that we must look to the future, and at the review of the funding formula, to which the Minister alluded in his opening remarks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) highlighted the issue of officer retention and some of the challenges in terms of the relationships between police forces, particularly in the areas surrounding London. We look forward with interest to the continuing discussions of the Police Negotiating Board on south-east allowances, which is of direct relevance to a number of Members who have made contributions; the Minister mentioned this in his remarks.
	My hon. Friend also made some important points about counter-terrorism and the Olympics budget. We look forward to receiving further details from the Minister on that budget. There are some scrutiny aspects that will need to be applied, and we need to have a better understanding of the Government's position and of the costs and impact all of this might have on police forces throughout the country and their budgets.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) is passionate about the issues facing his Cambridgeshire area. His comments reflect those of the chief constable, Julie Spence, on the difficulties and challenges in respect of movements of population and whether the funding formula adequately takes them into account, particularly when it is based on information that dates back to 2004.
	Clearly, this discussion is part of a wider debate on the comprehensive spending review, and it is interesting to note that at the time when the first police funding grant was settled, Tim Brain, chief constable of Gloucestershire police and the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on finance, made the following prescient point:
	We don't all start on a level playing field, and some, possibly many, forces will have to continue to introduce planned cuts at a local level. Furthermore, the grant settlement will help maintain most aspects of 'business as usual' but is likely to restrict key development.
	His comments then are equally relevant now in terms of some of the pressures and challenges police forces have to address and the fact that those challenges are changing and growing. We have heard about the pressures in relation to the growth of different communities and new communities arising, one of which is translation costs; according to Freedom of Information Act information, in the last financial year the cost to police forces throughout the country is about 25 million. That cost has risen significantly in the past five years, probably by about two thirds. It is also worth remembering that additional policing pressures arise from this.
	It would be useful to hear from the Minister about the context and framework of the review of the police funding formula. What will the parameters of that review be, and to what extent will his ambit take into account changes in population and the practical impact that has on police forces and how they manage their budgets? I hope he will be able to give more details when he responds to the debate, and to confirm the timing of the review, whether he expects to publish interim findings in respect of it, and how this will interrelate with the next comprehensive spending round. That will be important in informing the debate, and in explaining how things will link with the funding arrangements for the police as we move towards the next comprehensive spending review.
	A number of different factors are putting increasing pressures on the police. As, sadly, we all know, there is a downturn in the economy, with an accompanying risk of an increase in volume-acquisitive crime. The Home Office appears to have recognised and accepted that this will lead to an increase in crime, although we are getting some mixed messages from the Home Secretary about whether she agrees with that perspective. I am thinking of the leaked memo that indicated that the Home Office was expecting a rise. Will the Minister confirm whether he agrees with the memorandum or with the view of the Home Secretary that there might not be such a rise? There are also other pressuresnot simply direct burglaries and frauds, which have been focused on, but emerging threats. He knows the interest that I take in the growth in cybercrime and internet crimethe different types of emerging problems that are complex and technical and for which there have been few prosecutions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. We need to address the reliance on forensics and how dealing with that type of criminality will need to feed into and inform future funding arrangements because of the additional pressures that it will place on policing; we need to respond to the changing nature of the threats that emerge.
	The Flanagan review made an important point about the pressures on policing; it said that the current level of policing numbers was unsustainable. Notwithstanding the fact that police strength numbers remained flat, according to the last figures, will the Minister say whether he agrees with Sir Ronnie's view that police force numbers are unsustainable? If he does, will he say what assessment he is making of any reductions that might apply and how that fits into the context of the current settlement and, indeed, future ones?
	This important debate has given many hon. Members the opportunity to highlight the financing challenges and problems that may be faced in ensuring greater safety in their communities. We look forward to hearing further details on the funding formula and on how the Minister intends to review and reform it to ensure that it provides for, and reflects the needs of, our communities and is responsive to changes in threat, in population and in need. We look forward to continuing the debate in the months ahead.

Vernon Coaker: I thank all hon. Members who contributed to this debate for the informed and interesting way in which they made their points. I shall try to answer the questions that have been raised and deal specifically with some of the points.
	I agree very much with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the fact that all of us should start these debates, as we have done, by paying tribute to police forces across the country for their work and the way in which they often put themselves in very dangerous situations to ensure public safety as far as they are able.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) again sought confirmation about capping. He will know that Cheshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire were capped in advance for 2009-10, limiting their council tax increases to 3 per cent.that situation stays the same. They had 21 days from 26 November in which to appeal and none did sothat was the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made; the approach we took significantly helped in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked what capital moneys had been brought forward. Capital moneys for Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Police Improvement Agency have been brought forward, and they have been spent on helping with the current economic climate. He asked whether police authorities can apply for the migration moneys that I mentionedyes, they can. I want to spend a little time on this issue. We expect the Office for National Statistics to produce estimates of short-term inward migration by this summer, and we want to improve the population data informing the police funding formula debate. The review of the formula gives us an opportunity to try to address some of the issues raised by hon. Members from across the House. That review will enable us from the next comprehensive spending review roundfrom 2011-12to move forward on that basis. That is where our intention lies. Meetings have started to be held on what changes we should be reflecting upon and, indeed, this afternoon's debate will help with that debate. All the issues such as how we better estimate population and the impact of migration will be included in our discussions, as will other matter that have been raised.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) said that no change had been forthcoming. I know he could not help not being here earlier in the debate, but had he been here he would have heard that from April the migration impact fund will be available in Government offices for the regions; police forces, as well as other local service providers, will be able to apply for money to help them deal with some of the very issues that he raised with regard to Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire police authority will be able to go to the Government office for its region to put a case for receiving that money, as will authorities in other parts of the country.

Vernon Coaker: It is also incumbent on Ministers to act responsibly. What I have said to the hon. Gentleman is that from April his local police force will be able to apply to the Government office for his region for funding. If we unpick the funding formula in the middle of a CSR round, although his force may get an extra few million, countless other Conservative Back Benchers and Members from all parts of the House will say that the Government have broken what they said they were going to do, which was to provide stable funding for the police service. That is why the Home Office has received limited representation about this funding round and why we have heard more concern about what happens in the next funding roundthat is what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was arguing about and it is what most other Members in this debate have discussed. They recognise that if a Government unpick a settlement in the middle of it, that causes instability and chaos. That is why we have not unpicked this one and why we are not going to do so.

Vernon Coaker: I want to carry onI hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	The point of today's debate is that it allows us to inform that funding formula. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East raised the issue of new technology and we agree with him on it. He, like the hon. Member for Hornchurch, raised a specific point, and I should like to read out a reply so that I put it accurately. The police portal was a website providing a national communications channel. The main service was to enable the reporting of crime and hate crime online. Good use was made of it, but running costs increased as a result of technical problems. The Association of Chief Police Officers took the view that there was not enough demand to justify the increasing costs, so the scheme was discontinued. QinetiQ's contract was terminated by the NPIA in July 2007. QinetiQ then sued the NPIA and it countersued. These legal matters were resolved in November 2008 in a non-disclosed agreement. Some forces do have online facilities on their website to allow the reporting of crime.

Vernon Coaker: To provide the detail that my right hon. Friend requires, over and above the legal opinion that I have just given, I might need to write to him. I will put a copy of that letter in the Library.
	The issue of alcohol was also raised by several hon. Members. We take the need to address that issue seriously and we are taking a range of enforcement measures. The Policing and Crime Bill will allow the Government to establish a mandatory code for the off-trade and for pubs and supermarkets. That will help to tackle the irresponsible promotions and pricing that lead to some of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members.
	The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) mentioned Dyfed-Powys force and the important role of volunteers. We all agree that volunteers are particularly important and we need to ensure that we encourage specials and other volunteers.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the issue of the future of the rural policing grant. As we have discussed, that will form part of the review.
	I confirm again to the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) that the south-east allowances will form part of the discussions with the Police Negotiating Board. I hope that the issue will be resolved as quickly as possible to address the problem of the transfer of officers from neighbouring forces to the Metropolitan police.
	The settlement before us represents a further significant increase in resources for the police services of England and Wales. The latest figures show not a decrease in police numbers, but an increase. In all forces since 1997, there have been significant increases in police officer numbers, and in staff numbers, as well as the introduction of PCSOs. At the same time, we have seen big reductions in crime. That is a record to be proud of and, notwithstanding the difficult economic times, this funding settlement will allow our police services to continue that fine record.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 200910 (House of Commons Paper No. 148), which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.

John Healey: In a moment, I shall explain the conclusions that I have come to on whether there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the three-year settlement. I shall also deal with how I expect councils to showand how they are showingthat they can deal with the downtown. I am aware of such representations, not least from London councils, representatives of which I met face to face. Their first point, when I asked them about the apparent impact of the economic downturn on their councils, was that an increasing number of students were coming out of private school education and looking for places in the state school system. That was their top priority.

John Healey: That is one of the points that have been put to me, not least by the Local Government Association, as the hon. Gentleman might expect. The impacts and pressures of the economic downturn do not all go one way. Some costs are down considerably, reserves are up and with inflation set to be lower next year, the quantum of Government grant to local government is likely to go further. There are pressures on local councils, just as there are on central Government, but they do not all go one way. Councils have the capacity to manage their way through this period, not least because they now have a three-year settlement with extra flexibility as part of the funding. They know what they are getting and are able to plan ahead and make some of the difficult decisions that they face.
	In my statement to the House on 26 November, I launched the period of statutory consultation on the local government settlement for next year. That ended on 7 January, and we received 109 written representations from local authorities, local authority groupings and hon. Members. That is the smallest number of representations on the local government finance settlement that anyone can remember. It underlines the seriousness with which local government take our commitment to a stable three-year settlement and, I think, the seriousness with which local government takes its responsibility to manage within that settlement.

Simon Hughes: I am sorry that I missed the Minister's first words, but I rushed here as soon as I saw that he had started to speak. I think that there might not have been many representations because, with a fixed three-year settlement, local councils might have thought that they would not see much change. Does he accept the case put by inner London boroughs in the representations that he has received for a better allocation of money for social services and the care of vulnerable younger people? The figure that I have been givenhe can correct me if I am wrongis that last year 370 million was transferred out of London to the rest of the country. While some local authorities now have 99 per cent. of their funding met, boroughs like mine get only two-thirds of what they need to look after vulnerable young people.

John Healey: My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is always helpful. The hon. Gentleman has just asked a separate and different question, but I can give him the same answer. It is yes, and not least because the national statistician has been leading a task force over the past year, with local government intimately and essentially involved. On 24 February, the Office for National Statistics will announce a package of improvements to the population and migration statistics that will give us a better base for calculations for any future financial settlement beyond this three-year period.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous, particularly to me. I welcome the announcement but would like to suggest another way in which he can help small businesses across the country immediately. The Government should consider how to make the small business rate relief automatic. Many businesses are not aware of the relief and pay business rate bills far higher than they should be.

John Healey: I am open to suggestions. I have written not only to all local authorities, but to business organisations. I have encouraged them to ensure that they do all that they can through their networks, local groups and membership to promote the scheme and its availability, and I hope that that will also help with take-up in future.
	I noticed that I whetted the appetite of some hon. Members by mentioning concessionary bus travel.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) wants to intervene, of course he can; or perhaps we can look forward to a speech from him. Funding for free bus travel for 11 million pensioners and disabled people continues to be delivered through two routes: the core grant and the special grant that local authorities requested for last year and the coming year. There is no evidence that the total amount of additional funding that central Government are putting in to support this new entitlement, which we are keen that people have, is not enough, although some authorities have argued for a change in its distribution. I understand their argument, but I have to say that any change would upset the three-year funding certainty of the settlement. I also have to say that there is no guarantee that any alternative allocation would match needs better than the current one.

John Healey: We do not need studies, because we can look at what has happened during the course of this year. The hon. Gentleman refers to studies; I was referring to modelling that local government had commissioned to try to argue the case with central Government. Of course, one of the main results of the free entitlement is that more people travel on buses. That is why this year central Government are putting an extra 212 million into the concessionary travel pot to ensure that we can cover the extra costs for the extra entitlement that people now have to travel for free on buses not only within their local council area but anywhere that they choose.
	There was strong support in the consultation for three-year settlements; I keep coming back to that. That applies particularly in such economic times, because it gives local government the stability and certainty that it needs to plan and manage its budgets effectively. That, combined with an extra 8.9 billion over three years, and moving 5.7 billion into general grants that are not ring-fenced, allows councils to spend money on what matters most to local people.
	A number of councillors commented on the pressures that they faced due to declining income or increasing demand on services. To help deal with the extra work load for housing and council tax benefit services, we have now confirmed that an extra 45 million will be distributed to councils on a monthly basis during 2009-10, using the existing administration subsidy distribution formula.
	I also recognise the concerns of local authorities that have made investments in Icelandic banks. They have money that is clearly at risk, but it is not lost, and I want to help to minimise the problems for those authorities. Having completed the consultation on draft regulations that I promised to the House in November, I will shortly lay them before the House so that they can come into effect in this financial year. The regulations will mean that the possible losses from Icelandic banks will not affect council budgets or council tax levels during the next year. Representations have been made to me by some authorities about the position of passenger transport executives, which would not be covered by the change in regulations I have proposed. Those are subject to a separate and more flexible financial regime, and unlike local authorities, they are already able to spread revenue costs between years without any Government action being needed.
	Like everyone else, however, councils are now making hard budgetary decisions, and while the year ahead will be tough for many people, they need their council to provide services that they can rely on, and they need it to keep council tax down. In December, the Audit Commission published its report Crunch time?, which confirmed that councils are generally prepared for the impact that this downturn will have on local services, and that their efforts to find efficiency savings will ensure value for money and minimise the impact on their budgets and communities.
	As I said, however, the economic pressures are not all one way. With the expected fall in inflation next year, Government grants will go further. Some council costs are already down, reserves are up and borrowing is cheaper. Keeping council tax down and maintaining improvements in services means being continually more efficient, and low tax does not have to mean service cuts. About a fortnight ago, I visited Newham, Greenwich and Hackney, and saw that it is possible to make that equation add up. In each of those three boroughs, I saw service improvements and further investment at the same time that council tax was frozen. Councils must strive to make every penny of public money go as far as it can. When everyone is tightening their belt, people expect councils to do the same.

John Healey: My hon. Friend knows well enough that decisions about allowances for council members and decisions of employees' salaries are rightly matters for local government itself. I know that he will not agree with this, but I shall say it to him anyway. There are particular problems and financial pressures in Northumberland, some of which derive from the inheritance the new unitary council is taking on from the district authorities. In Northumberland, as in the other eight areas where new unitary councils will come into place in April, the scope to manage difficult economic pressures is much greater than it is for those councils that are continuing without such restructuring and reorganisation.

John Healey: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman. The Department did no modelling of the financial changes. It looked very hard, using external financial expertise, at the modelling and financial figures submitted by those proposing unitary government. We debated in the House the financial elements of each change to which Parliament gave the go-ahead.

John Healey: Because local government is capable of achieving things that central Government do not find easy to achieve in some cases and because leading councils are already doing each of the things that I have said, all councils need to consider much more seriously.

John Healey: Indeed. I accept and agree with the hon. Lady's points.
	The efficiency challenge for councils means that they need to find more than 1.5 billion new savings every year. To put that into perspective, it is worth 90 off the average band D council tax bill. For this year, councils are forecasting around 1.1 billion of new savings, which is similar to those that they have achieved in previous year, but it is clearly not good enough now, and councils must do more.
	I believe that council tax payers should be able to see and challenge the value for money that their local authorities provide. Therefore, from this year, I will require councils to put on council tax bills standard information about the efficiency gains that they are making, and to give further detail in the accompanying leaflets.

John Healey: There are all sorts of ways in which the efficiencies that Departments achieve are available for public scrutiny, as well as debate in the House. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that the cost of such changes to council tax bills are relatively marginal and that I took them into account when reaching the decision.
	Let me say something about council tax and capping, which, I know, will be unpopular and unwelcome in local government. We acted to protect council tax payers from excessive increases this year, and I will not hesitate to take tough action again, including requiring rebilling, if it is necessary to protect council tax payers next year. A combination of inflation-busting increases, which we have provided every year since 1997, to the Government grant to local government, and the threat of council tax capping produced this year the second lowest ever increase in council tax. At this time of economic downturn, councils should do everything in their power to keep council tax bills down and leave more money in people's pockets.
	When I came to the job of Minister for Local Government 20 months ago [Interruption.] I missed that sharp comment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I do not know whether he would like to repeat itif I missed it, the Official Reporters may have found it difficult to follow, too.

Bob Neill: I will look the right hon. Gentleman straight in the eye, as I think I canat least we have both retained our hair in our political careersand say that the Minister answered that question when he said that efficiency and lower tax need not mean cuts in services. The Minister was right; indeed, Mayor Johnson in London and Conservative councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are demonstrating precisely that point. However, it is perfectly reasonable for us to point out, in a spirit of constructive opposition, the concern that, even within the envelope of whatever settlement may be reached, there are areas where the system fails or does not work properly. However, I will turn to that point in a few moments, if hon. Members will bear with me.
	The effect of the figures that we haveI hope that Government Members will remember thisconfirms what was said in the debate in November. The Minister talks about the record levels of grant given to local authorities. The reality, however, is that council tax, which is the bottom line that most individuals and families are concerned about, will have doubled under this Governmentthat is, it will have doubled for families who are more hard pressed than they have been in many years. The figures, which have never been disputed, are as follows. From 1997-98, the first full financial year under this Government, through to this year, 2008-09, a band D council tax billthe standard measure normally used by the Government and all independent observerswill have increased from 688 to 1,374. The Minister said that he wanted to act on evidence and facts, and there we have incontrovertible evidence and facts.
	Against that background, the Minister will know that the chairman of the Local Government Association wrote this year to say that the association anticipated that council tax increases would be about 3.5 per cent. on top of that rise. The reality is that such increases are well beyond inflation, as the Minister himself concedes. Why is this happening? It is not through a lack of effort by the local authorities. It is because, at the end of the day, the funding settlement has not kept pace with the rising costs that bear down particularly heavily on local government. The Minister is a sensitive man, and he knows that the rise in council tax has repeatedly been flagged up in opinion polls and other evidence as one of the most significant concerns identified by individuals and families. This settlement makes things worse. If the Government want to have a joined-up set of policies, this is not the way to do it.
	This remorseless rise in council tax makes nonsense of the supposed fiscal stimulus that we saw introduced before Christmas. The anticipated 3.5 per cent. increase is actually less than the Government's anticipated figure of 4.5 per cent., which was hidden away in the small print of the pre-Budget report. It is thanks to local government, not the Government, that that figure is coming down. A 3.5 per cent. increase would take band D council tax bills up to about 120 a month by April, and that would eat up much of the so-called spending power that the Government said they were putting back into people's pockets. They are giving with one hand and taking back with the other.

Bob Neill: Funnily enough, and unhappily, I do not carry such a list with me on my mobile word processor. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, however, he will find out not only about the commitments that have been made, but about the local authorities that are already working to cut tax. Indeed, some local authorities such as Kensington and Chelsea have already announced a 50 efficiency bonus; some like Hammersmith and Fulham have announced a 3 per cent. reduction; and the largest levier in the country, the Mayor of London, has announced a freeze. Action has already been delivered.

Bob Neill: Not surprisingly, the Minister has not described the Conservative party's policy accurately. In fact, as he knows, that the Government have been a little economical with the actualit. The 4.2 per cent. figure is the convenient figure that the Minister will always use, but local authorities of all political persuasions, including the cross-party Local Government Association, maintain that 2.8 per cent. is the real figure. They also point out that including the dedicated schools grant is not an accurate means of assessing discretionary spend. The Minister has done that for obvious reasons, given his position, but it does not give us the whole picture.
	Can I also just point out to the Minister the second area of concern here? He makes something of having increased the amount of non ring-fenced grant, but at the end of the day, that is still just a drop in the ocean; some 36 billion of the special grant remains ring-fenced. The bulk of it is still ring-fenced, so the amount of leeway for local authorities has eased a little, but not very much in the overall scheme of things. We are pledged to look at this again. Far too much of the expenditure outside dedicated schools grant is ring-fenced, and that gets in the way of local authorities' ability to take appropriate decisions for their localities.

Bob Neill: I suggest to my hon. Friend that there are some solutions here. The Minister's review is welcome in so far as it goes; nobody would dispute that. However, many of us would say that it has been a long time in coming, because these issues have been raised by Members on both sides of the Housethe hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) attended an earlier debate, and she has raised it on a number of occasions. We need to bring this matter to a head.
	There are things that could be done. There is a broad point about the way in which the formula grant is calculated and distributed. The criteria, the operation and the various indices that give rise to the distribution of the grant, whatever its overall size, to individual local authorities have become so opaque and unreliable that it no longer has credibility either with the professionals or the general public. The persistent use of significantly out-of-date population data is one very glaring example, although it is not the only one; several authorities have raised concerns about the fact that it is possible to interpret the deprivation indices in a number of different ways that produce different outcomes for local authorities.
	We ought to be doing two things. First, perhaps we should move to a system in which the criteria for the distribution of the grant are no longer set entirely within the Department without reference to any independent body. Australia has an independent grants commission, which plays a role. Ultimately, there must be parliamentary accountability, of course, but that is an interesting model. It would be perfectly plausible to charge such a body with a statutory duty to review and update the statistical information. Under the current system, the Government could, if they wanted, choose not to rely on the outdated census statistics, but to take on board a vast array of more up-to-date data, such as national insurance registrations and school registrations. The council in Westminster of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has collected and put forward such data to Ministers. The Government could change the information, even in the current system, but we could find an even better means of embedding it. The Government could act on those updated figures now, because that would require only a change to the regulatory environment, which could easily be achieved. That is the solution.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) raised the problem that this matter poses for inner-city areas. Does the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) agree that it also poses problems for more rural areas, which may contain a large number of seasonal migrant workers and so demands may vary within the year? There is scope for huge demographic change because of other reasons. For example, in my constituency, the growth of a higher education institute has resulted in the 18-to-24 population increasing by 80 per cent. in just three years. The funding formula struggles to deal with all these things.

Bob Neill: The hon. Lady is right, and her point demonstrates the urgency of the situation. I am glad that the Minister is taking this point on board, because many of us felt that when the Treasury was leading in this area it had a continuing reluctance to come to grips with the inadequacies of the situation. She is right to say that the problem applies across all types of authority, regardless of political or geographic circumstances. I hope that the Minister will come back urgently with the review. We will be constructive about that, but it may be necessary to go further

Bob Neill: I have been pretty generous so far, so the hon. Gentleman will understand that I now want to make some progress.
	All of what I have said comes back to a suggestion that the grant system is creaking to the stage where it is no longer credible. The other evidence of that can be seen in the floor system. The Minister makes the point about the protection of floors, but, in reality, when the floor system reaches a stage when about one third of all the larger authorities are on the floor, when about 24 out of the 33 London boroughs are on the floor, and when a range of types of authorities and about 40 per cent. of district councils are on a worse floor0.5 per cent., as opposed to 1.75. per cent.something perverse is happening. It leads me to conclude that the system has gone beyond its useful life and that we need a much more significant and thoroughgoing reform as to how distribution takes place.
	I noted, too, what the Minister said about looking at the operation of the area cost adjustments. I would welcome that, and again, I hope that he will use his good offices to impel some urgency into the matter, because it has been raised over a long time. It is not just about the operation of the grants for which his Department is responsible; one of the concerns that he will know has been raised both by the Local Government Association and by London councils is the lack of consistency between various Departments in the application of the ACAs. I hope that he will take that on board as a central point of the review, because I am sure that with political good will consistency could be achieved swiftly.
	My final point about the inadequacies of the grant formula relates to the peculiar results for local authorities of similar size and in similar, neighbouring areas. Let us consider a discrepancy in the formula grant in the west midlands. Solihull has a population of 205,000 and receives 53 million. Walsall has a population of 253,000. I accept that it has some other social problems, so one might expect a difference, but it receives 133 million, so the leap is so great as to be beyond credibility. The same applies closer to home for me, in the London boroughs. Bromley has a population of 300,000 and it receives 64 million. The next-door borough of Croydon has a population of 340,000, so it should get a bit morebut it receives 116 million, so there is a huge difference. Those apparently perverse outcomes cause people to question the way in which this system works in practice. With respect, I must say that those issues have not been addressed by the statement that has been made, because they relate to systemic problems that the Government could have dealt with, but have not dealt with over a period of time. That leads to suggestions that there is a degree of unjustified subjectivity in the operation of the system, and that needs to be dealt with if people are to have confidence for the future.
	The net result of all that is that burdens on the council tax payers remain. The Minister talks about the desire to reduce them, but we did not go too much into the costs of operating what remains an over-intrusive inspection and targets regime. We are told that we should be grateful that the new regime has reduced the number of national indicator sets to 198 or 195, but that is still a huge amount and far greater than is necessary. That amount still involves real costs for local authorities. The need to tick the boxes still forces distortions on local authorities. If the Minister is serious about giving freedom to local authorities, as I hope he is, he could cut back further on that distorting inspection and targets regime.
	If we are to achieve what is required for local authorities and council tax payers, we will need to give them more leeway than the Government have given them. I hope that Ministers consider that point for the remaining year, although I honestly do not think that they will be in a position to do so for the next three-year spending round. The bottom line is that people are now really hard pressed. Local authorities are doing their best, but sadly their job is being made harder by what is happening. I hope that, as a matter of urgency, local authorities will do all that they can to minimise the rise in council tax, despite the rotten hand that they have been dealt. We will work with them constructively. I am sorry that, for all the fine words from the Minister, the settlement will not give local authorities the constructive tools that they need to deliver as they wish for their communities.

Neil Turner: I think that I have been fairly generous in giving way on that point, so I shall carry on.
	It is important that we also welcome the floors and ceilings on funding. My local authority suffers from floors and ceilings, as it does not get as much funding as it would if we did not have floors and ceilings. Opposition Members talk about the amount of money that they are getting and about reductions because they are only at the floor, but they should be grateful to the people of Wigan. We are sufferingwe are the ones who are paying for the fact that you are getting more money than you would otherwise be entitled to. That is important. I agree with the idea in principle. It is the right thing to do, because it gives local authorities the opportunity to make measured and manageable changes rather than the kind of changes that we would otherwise havethe kind of changes that we were forced into in the '80s and '90s. Hasty, ill-considered desperate short-termism was a hallmark of what we experienced.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a little disingenuous when he talked about the changes to the formula, saying that it needs to be changedcreaking at the hinges was, I think, the phrase that he used. What he did not say was how he would introduce those changes. If he made a change that gave a 50 million increase to Bromley and Chislehurst and made a 50 million reduction in Wigan, would he do that overnight? Of course he would not. I would hope that he would introduce it in phases. In other words, all he would be able to do would be to follow the same floors and ceilings process as we have at the moment. The end result would be different, but unless there was a massive change in local government overnight on 1 April of whatever year he introduced it, such changes would have to be brought in gradually.

Neil Turner: The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the point that the Conservative party would introduce changes. If those changes are to be introduced, either they have to be introduced in one go or they will have to be phased in. If they are introduced in phases, there will be floors and ceilings. There is no use arguing against floors and ceilings and then saying that changes will be introduced.
	The other issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, which is important, was to do with the accuracy of statistics. We all want statistics to be more accurate and I noted that he welcomed the statement made on that point by my right hon. Friend the Ministerso do I. However, the hon. Gentleman was a little disingenuous when he said that the Australian system would somehow take the matter out of the political arena and put it into the academic arena. That would never happen. We are talking about local government and the services that it can provide for people. Those decisions are fundamentally political. The weighting given to each statistic will be a political decision. In the end, determining whether the allowance for free school meals should be 10 or 15 per head in a particular local authority will be a political decision. No matter whether the statistics are right or wrong, it is that political decision that will influence how much a local authority gets.
	The Government have struck a balance between achieving equity for places such as Wigan that are below target and managing the necessary reductions for those authorities that get more than the formula says. I welcome the reduction in the floor from 2.7 per cent. in 2007-08 to 1.75 per cent. now. Unless the floor is reduced to a fairly low level, authorities that are entitled to more money will never get it. The reduction needs to continue, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that it does.
	I shall give a couple of examples of what that means. If Wigan were to get its full entitlement, we would get an additional 6.5 million in 2009-10, and an additional 5.4 million in 2010-11. Obviously, that is 1.2 million better than what we are getting now, but we are still four or five years away from achieving equity. Adding that up, we are talking about Wigan receiving a total of 20 million or 30 million in additional money over a number of years. I believe that this is very much a work in progress, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that it continues in future settlements so that all local authorities get the entitlement that they deserve from the formula.
	I turn now to the important issue of revaluation. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said that the formula was creaking at the hinges, but I think that the problem is that the council tax itself is creaking at the hinges. I believe that the Conservatives designed it to be unfair, and one of John Major's few achievements from their point of view was to create the present unfair system.
	The burden of council tax falls most on the poorest, and least on the richest. We need to change that unfairness, and I think that we missed a trick with the Lyons report. We should have gone for that, or some form of it, as I believe that a property-based council tax is the right way to go. Even so, we need something new and much more transparent that can be integrated with council tax benefit.
	The Nationwide building society and others can tell us how house prices have gone up or down, year by year and month by month. I cannot see why we cannot build a system in which property bands move on a three-year basis, for example, so that values are constantly changing. In contrast, the present council tax was valued in 1989 or 1990.
	I want to touch on housing, which is an integral part of local government finance and services. The housing revenue account is under review, and that is long overdue. The Audit Commission said a number of years ago that it was unsustainable, and that is clearly true. Given that rent increases are running at 6.75 per cent. at a time when inflation is below 2 per cent., and that mortgages are coming down on a monthly basis, the disparity between council house tenants and the rest of the population is clear to see. I hope that the Minister and his Department will take that on board, so that the convergence with registered social landlord housing rents is delayed and the impact on council house tenants is reduced.
	There are issues that we can deal with. If we put more money into housing, it will help the national economy, and help local economies even more. Housing repairs and maintenance, and house building, are labour-intensive, and we source most of the materials from the local economy. They have a massive impact on local authorities and economies. We should put money into that. If we put money into disabled grants, there would be a double whammy: that would not only help the local economy, but would allow people to stay in their own homes. If we allow them to stay in their homesthat, as we know, is what the vast majority want to doit will reduce pressures on social services and on the NHS.
	The Supporting People programme that the Government introduced, and the money that they put into it, is hugely important to achieving those aims. Again, if we look at the amount of money that goes into that, and at the formula, we see that there are huge discrepancies between the money that local authorities should get and the money that they actually get. It suffers from the same problem as the local authority grant. The Department for Communities and Local Government needs to consider whether we can ensure that local authorities can meet people's needs, and can put the money to good use in the local economy. To take the example of Wigan, in 2008-09, we got 7.2 million less than we should have done. In 2010-11 we will have 5.4 million less than we should; that reduction is 1.8 million less than the reduction in 2008-09, but it is still a significant figure. We could do with that.
	When we talk about housing and the Supporting People grant, we also need to talk about the primary care trust. I know that that does not come under the heading of local authority funding, but it is an important issue. Often, local authorities and primary care trusts pool resources, grants and funding. The line between what the NHS provides and what the local authority provides is becoming increasingly blurred. Fights about who should fund what just allow vulnerable people to fall between the two. It is right that PCTs and local authorities should get together on that issue, as they increasingly do.
	I have explained why the Supporting People programme and NHS funding is important. The difficulty arises when a local authority such as mine is underfunded under the local authority grant, under the Supporting People grant, and in its primary care trust funding. That compounds the problems and makes servicing those needs extremely difficult. To give the example of Wigan once again, in 2009-10, our PCT funding will be 4.7 per cent., or 25.5 million, below target. In 2010-11, we will have 25.4 million, or 4.5 per cent., less than we should. That is a 56,000 a year difference, under the final figures. I worked out that, on that basis, we will achieve our target on 14 April 6518 AD. I am not likely to be around then. It is important that we make progress on that issue because of the impact that it has on local government and the services that we provide.
	The shortfall in those three programmes is 36.2 million in one year. If we carry that forward year on year, we can imagine the difficulty that my local authority and primary care trust will have in providing people with necessary services. Those are not services that I have plucked out of the air; I am referring to services that demonstrably and measurably cannot be provided, or fully provided, because of underfunding. I know that the Minister is aware of the issue because Rotherham, his local authority, is in a similar position; I think that the figure is 35.8 million for Rotherham, whereas it is 36.2 for Wigan, over the three years. He is well aware of the problems, and I know that he is working hard within both local and central Government to address those issues.
	The public services that we need must be given those resources. On the Government formulas, the independent advice given by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation for PCTs, and other advice given through local government, is that the money that we are talking about is the kind of money that is necessary to provide services that people in Wigan, Rotherham and other areas need. It is not a matter of shifting money from the south to the north. There are areas in London that require additional funding. It is not about towns  v. country. There are country areas that require additional funding. It is about fairness, justice, equity, equality, and giving support to those who need it. That is why we on the Labour Benches came into politics, and why it is so important that my right hon. Friend continues the work that he has done to make sure that all local authorities and all primary care trusts get the resources that they need to provide the services required by their people.

Daniel Rogerson: Post offices are also involved, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Local authorities have carry other things because the other providers that were originally in the area have gone.

John Howell: I start by reminding the House that I remain a county councillor on Oxfordshire county council. I do not wish to use this opportunity to engage in special pleading for the council, but that experience is relevant to how the settlement can be implemented and how past settlements have been implemented on the ground.
	For three of the four years for which I have served on the county council, I held a portfolio that was relevant to the debate. Its scope was to drive through efficiencies, make the council more effective and drive through business processes that would enable it to deliver on its financial commitments. I think that we did very well on that, removing several hundred posts from the establishment and introducing business processes in planning and budget management that I think would be the envy of many a multinational. We slashed office costs by creating a shared service centre, which works well and promised 27 million of gross savings in the first seven years. We more than met our efficiency savings targets. However, any sense of pride in those achievements was tempered by the frustration of our expectations that we could, after coming to power with a radical agenda, make radical changes for the benefit of local people. Too often, those aims were frustrated by the way in which the Government perceived us as little more than their local executive arm and placed significant budgetary constraints on us, which reduced our options. The settlement perpetuates that, despite the Minister's words.
	From the outside, councils' budgets may appear large. My county council has an annual turnover just short of 1 billion. However, the amount of money to play with in terms of local choice is pathetically smallonly a few million pounds. At this time of year, when budget debates take place in council chambers, there is a common cry of, Why is so much time spent on so little money? It is impossible to adopt a distinctive political slant. The debate always happens because there is so little scope to alter funding objectives in the rest of the budget. There are two reasons for that.
	First, some spending could not be cut without catastrophic effects on services to vulnerable people. Secondly, a huge element of the budget is ring-fenced to ensure that it can be spent only to deliver the Government agenda. To add insult to injury, that agenda was often euphemistically expressed as shared priorities. I am not sure with whom we were supposed to share the priorities. For example, on highways, five were imposed and our sharing was restricted to one, which we had the option to create ourselves.
	Despite the Minister's comments, freeing up the ring-fenced council grants has not gone nearly far enough to bring back control to local councillors and provide that distinctive local feeling. The hard work of making savings and efficiencies was largely simply to stand still, as the cash made from efficiencies was soaked up by pressures from service needs, demography, which has been mentioned, or new impositions from central Government. Again, some of my hon. Friends referred to the latter pressure.
	Let me give an example, albeit a small one. Under the Building Schools for the Future programme, the attendant costs of submitting a bid are considerable in the time that senior council officers have to spend on it. A judgment had to be made about whether the costs were worth while, especially given the bias in the programme against affluent areas such as my county.
	In the current climate, there is a huge take-up of services, not all due to the recession. After the baby P case, there has been a 32 per cent. increase in the number of referrals. It defies belief that, with such a mountain of evidence, the Minister can still claim that there are no exceptional circumstances.
	It is perhaps worth considering where the headroomthe amount that we can decide how to spend to give some local character to a budgetcomes from. It does not come from what the Government describe as a generous settlement. The three-year settlement in my council was increased by 2 per cent., 1.75 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. The boasts about investment in local government translate as pure spin and hide the wide regional variations that occur in the settlement as a whole.
	The boasts also hides the fact, which I raised in an intervention on the Minister, that the real inflation rate that councils face has been well over 5 per cent. It is made up of various elements, but energy costs incurred when energy bills were much higher are only beginning to come through.
	For the reasons that I have given, the headroom does not come mainly from savings, because they are used simply to stand still, nor does it come from excessive council tax rates. Being a good, Conservative county council, we have continued to put downward pressure on the rise in council tax in the three years that there has been a Conservative administration there. Often, however, a major element of financial stability has had to come from the strategic measures that the council has had to take for example in maximising its return on investments. It is no wonder that so many councils turned to Icelandic banks, relying on their interest rates in order to fund services.
	The amounts involved are not insignificant. In the past, those strategic measures could have accounted for as much as 1.5 per cent. of a council's total budget requirements. That is a phenomenal amount of money. In the current downturn, a council would be lucky if those strategic measures accounted for 0.5 per cent. of its budget requirements. That has a major impact, in terms of the need both to rethink the strategies for borrowing and to make reductions in the headroomand, therefore, the need to look to cut services or achieve further efficiencies.
	I do not particularly want to conclude with an image of total frustration, but I am afraid that it is one that many councillors would identify with, owing to the way in which the Government have handled local government and the current settlement. They have eroded the chance to put a local face to local services, undermined local democracy and shown that they simply do not trust local councillors to make good local decisions. The Government have undermined good business practices by making it more difficult for councils to plan for the long term, because all the effort is put into meeting short-term Government targets, and they have imposed a ridiculous and meaningless burden of inspections, the likes of which they would not dare to subject themselves to.
	In one year, we had the unfortunate experience of having a full comprehensive performance assessment of the council, as well as having to put all the information together for the Government's ill-conceived plans to try to encourage us to bring forward unitary proposals. Both sapped senior resources in the council to a quite unimaginable degree. The effect of that on how we took forward our plans was quite significant. Moreover, the Government have presided over a financing system that is so opaque as to be practically incoherent. Many councillors believe, I think quite justifiably, that its whole purpose is to maximise the opportunities for central Government to get their own way. It is time for the Minister to put forward some proposals that allow the people to whom councils are really accountable finally to make the judgments.

Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. There is a form of friendship among those who have spoken at the Dispatch Box about local governmentindeed, I hope that I can call the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who represents our Front Bench, two of my friends in the House.
	I know the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) rather less well, but she has a very good grasp of the subject, and always speaks knowledgeably and well on it. I was a bit surprised when she said that she was excitedI wondered what I had missed in the debate so farbut she managed to convey why she was excited. From that I took it that she was even excited by the prospect of our becoming the Government. I share that sense of excitement.
	The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) reminded me of when I was the sponsor Minister for the city challenge project in Wigan. I would like to put on record how much I enjoyed that experience and how much I enjoyed working with the excellent Peter Smith in Wigan. That project was an attempt by the Government to be involved in supporting a local authority when times were difficult. In answer to the occasional jibe that is thrown in our direction about apparently being a do nothing Government at the time of the last recession, I would say that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there was not much vested political interest in the Conservative party being heavily involved in Wigan through the city challenge project. We were doing it because it was the right thing to do at a difficult time, when we were affected by, if I may say so, a global change in manufacturing, for which we were blamed by hon. Members on the Labour Benches. It is an ill wind that comes round to see another Government being affected by what is apparently a global change and catching the drift of public discontentin this case, quite rightly.
	I want to make some general remarks about the settlement, followed by one or two particular ones. When I spoke from the Dispatch Box a couple of years ago, at the time of the first three-year settlement, I said that I welcomed the certainty that three-year settlements established. Since then, however, we have seen one of the problems with such arrangements. In a land where boom and bust no longer exist, a three-year settlement has some merit, because there is stability and we can plan. In the real world, where it turns outto the surprise of no one except the Prime Ministerthat boom and bust have not been abolished, the deficiencies of a three-year settlement become exposed. The settlement is subject to pressures that no one could have imagined at a time when certainty was guaranteed. As we all know, those pressures come into the equation and cause difficulties, a number of which have been mentioned.
	Investment income for local authorities, and income from property, searches and business rates constitute a relatively small sum compared with the overall settlement, but, because of the tightness of gearing in local authority finance, they actually constitute quite a significant amount. The pressures from these changes and the impact of the credit crunch on local authorities, which colleagues on both sides of the House have identified, are very real. The Local Government Association has published a series of figures, but I will not read them out because the Minister knows them well. Those new pressures have come into the equation, but some of our original concerns with the settlement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst highlighted earlier and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) has just explained, are still in the system to cause concern.
	For example, adult social services remain a worry for everyone in local government because we know that the inflation figures that the Government have calculated do not meet the needs of those who come into the system needing care. That is a source of concern whenever councillors get together. Will the Minister pay particular attention to the transfer of youngsters who have been in care and who, on becoming adults, have found themselves in a situation where provision has tended not to be made, over the years?
	I recently visited Hinwick Hall, a special school run by Livability, the organisation that was put together by the merger of the Shaftesbury Society and John Grooms. It cares for a number of youngsters in a residential setting, but the teachers and parents involved are constantly concerned about what will happen to the youngsters when they finish full-time education and leave that environment to go back to their original local authority, because the necessary provision is so often not there.
	A growing number of youngsters are coming into that situation, and there will be a need for more provision, not less. I am not sure that the amounts already accounted for in the grant formula for adult social services will meet that need in the future. That will remain a concern for everyone. In relation to cash for highways, the inflation figures often outstrip the figures calculated by the Government. Public care costs, which a number of lawyers in my own area have mentioned to me, are also increasing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has said.
	I want to make some particular points about Bedfordshire. The Minister will know all too well the background to the situation there, and whatever hair he did not lose as a result of his previous job has certainly been lost through dealing with those problems. That applies to me as well. Some colleagues might remember that, before I went to Bedfordshire, I had a full head of hair, played football and all that sort of thing. Bedfordshire has dealt a savage blow to all that.
	The background to the situation in Bedfordshire has been the steady rise in council tax98 per cent. in Bedford borough and 105 per cent. in Mid-Bedfordshire district council since this Government took officeand the pressures now being created by the unitary process, which the Minister will understand very well. I have expressed concern in the past that the introduction of the unitary process involved a quick, late decision by the Government, which put extra pressures on the councils involved. Will the Minister reassure me that he will take a very close interest in the work of the excellent implementation teams in Bedfordshire and Bedford councils to ensure that, despite the difficult time scale, the process works?
	There was some disquiet locally when both councils announced quite small local tax increases this year. It had been hoped initially that quite significant reductions would emerge through the unitary process10 per cent. or 12 per cent. was quoted by the mayor of Bedford, but he recently had to announce that he was looking for a rise of slightly less than 1 per cent. That is very different from what was said previously, but I am sure that this is only the first stage and that savings will come from the unitary process as promised, particularly if both councils elect a Conservative administration at the first available opportunity. It is early days; I am sure that more will happen in future.
	I would like to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to councillors who have served on the councils in my constituency that are going to form the unitary councilon Bedford borough council, Mid-Bedfordshire district council and, last but not least, Bedfordshire county council, which will cease to exist in April after more than 100 years of service. Some sterling work has been done there by councillors and the council has largely been Conservative run through most of its history. In recent years, it moved from being a no-star council to a three-star council over a very short period: it became one of the fastest and best-improving councils in the country.
	I was reminded of that fact today when I attended the funeral of Councillor Phyllis Gershon who recently died in harness. She was 89 years old. I suspect that most Members think very fondly of some councillors for their extraordinary service. Phyllis encapsulated what local authority service really means: genuine commitment to an area; no side; no privilege; doing her work honestly and well. Many councillors have done that over the years and they are responsible, I think, for some of the Government's success in local government. They have helped the Government to meet targets that were difficult to achieve through Government Departments, and they have done so through the hard work and effort of local councillors. I hope that we would all give credit to them for that.

Alistair Burt: In the remaining moments available, I want to bring two or three particular issues to the Minister's attention. As far as the credit crunch in Bedford is concerned, figures from Bedford council show that it expects to lose about a third of its investment income this year. It used to bring in about 2.6 million, but it will lose about 900,000 this yearquite an amountfrom the change in interest rates. If we add in the property, the searches and perhaps section 106, I am slightly surprised that with all that going on, the Minister thought that his original settlement could stay stable.
	Secondly, concessionary fares were highlighted by several Members. Bedford council reckons that it will take a hit of about 250,000 on those fares. The Minister is adamant that the overall figure appears to the Government to meet the needs imposed as more people take up the concessionary fare scheme, but many councils have denied that, so I genuinely ask the Minister to reconsider it at some stage. The tight gearing means that these amounts really count for local authorities. If, when the scheme is fully implemented and the figures come in, it turns out that local authorities have lost out significantly, will the Minister give a commitment to looking at it again and make some recompense?
	Thirdly, Building Schools for the Future is important for Bedford council. I am pleased about the support it is getting from the Government, but the local education partnership and the financing of the programme have come in for criticism from all sides. I would be keen to know what the Minister includes in the figures for the future financing of the partnership under the new unitary council and how he believes it will be paid by council tax payers in the future. People fear that it could be a considerable amount. I know that the Minister has looked at it very carefully and I accept that this is good news for Bedford council and its schools in the future, but how it will be paid for is a matter of concern. If the Minister cannot address that issue today, perhaps he will do so on another occasion.
	Finally, on help for business, I recently had a meeting with the Sandy chamber of trade, which said that it had hardly noticed any difference as a result of the 12.5 billion spent on VAT changes and that if that money had been put into reducing business rates for small businesses, it would have meant a great deal more. Perhaps the Minister will review this issue in due course and see whether better ways of supporting small businesses can be found than these VAT changes.
	We will always have debates such as this. The expectations of local authorities are very high, and the expectation of Government is very high. There will never be enough money to satisfy all the needs, no matter who is in office locally or nationally. The idea of the three-year settlement is good, but it has the flaws identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, looks forward to the occasion when he will sit on the other side of the fence and will have to put some of these difficult proposals into operation.
	The Minister, for his part, is rightly proud of his work both in the Treasury and in local government. We know him to be an honest and extremely capable Minister, and in due course, I am afraid, he will make a very good shadow Secretary of State for the environment and local government when he is given the chance.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend clearly has the highest regard for the Minister, which I share.
	The debate gives us an opportunity to honour some of the leading lights in local government. I do not think that council leaders are ever given enough credit in the House for the work that they do. Among those whom I know or have encountered is Keith Mitchell CBEleader of Oxfordshire county council and a colleague of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell)who since the Conservatives took control of the council at the most recent local elections has done an outstanding job in putting its finances in better order while improving services at the same time. I shall say more about that shortly.
	I am also thinking of men such as Stephen Greenhalgh, leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. I know that the Minister received a presentation from that Conservative council last week on the excellent work that it has been doing in reducing council tax while improving services. Then there is a man who, in my view, is not given enough attention in the national press: Mike Whitby, the leader of Britain's second city, Birmingham. He is a kind of pre-Boris Boristhe first Conservative mayor of a big city for some yearsand he has been a superb leader of that city.
	What unites the three gentlemen whom I have mentionedand I have mentioned those three merely because they are the ones whom I know bestis a passion for the areas that they represent, and a passionate desire to give their council tax payers, the residents and the local population the best service possible. That, I think, goes to the heart of some of the frustration expressed by Conservative Members today about central Government's attitude to local governmentthe stranglehold in which central Government hold local government, and the almost psychotic wish of central Government not to allow local government the flexibility to experiment or innovate. Local government is simply there as central Government's whipping boy.
	We see from the Government endless initiatives designed to catch headlines, particularly on issues such as free swimming, which concern me as a shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, but also on issues mentioned by other Members, such as free local transport. The Government take the plaudits for those initiatives while expecting local government to pick up the bill. I suspect that the postbags of all Members in every part of the House will have been full of letters from constituents saying I heard this announced by the Government six months ago: why is the council not implementing it? We have to tell them that it is because, having announced it, the Government did not give the council the money.
	Another thing that all Members will find frustrating is the sheer hypocrisy of Government. I must say that I think it is a good idea for council tax bills to contain details of the efficiencies and savings that a council has managed to come up with. I suspect that Hammersmith and Fulham council will do that without any impetus from Government, because it has a fantastic story to tell about the savings that it has achieved for local council tax payers. It is, however, mind-boggling hypocrisy that the Government patronise local government by saying, You will do this, and you will be made to be more efficient, but heaven forfend that local councils should push back and say, Well, how about putting some of the efficiency savings that central Government have made on your income tax bills and other bills? Central Government spending continues to rise inexorably, while all the time they are strangling local government spending.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire alluded to the fact that we have these debates all the time. Particularly for those watching outside the Chamber, there might be the feeling that here we go againthat were there to be another Conservative Government, we might be in this Chamber in some years' time with Labour Opposition Members complaining about the high-handed acts of central Government. However, I anticipate that there is on the Conservative Benches a genuine appetite for a change in the relationship between central and local governmentfor more power to be pushed down to local government.
	We have talked about my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor's commitment to freeze council tax in partnership with councils that will come to the table. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) is no longer in his place, but I would remind him that he can put Oxfordshire county council at number one on his list of councils that said they would come to the table for that council tax freeze.
	We have also proposed referendums, so that if a council wants to increase the council tax above a certain level, the local people will have a chance to say, Yes, we approve of that spending; we think it is the right thing to do in the circumstances, or No, you've breached your covenant with us; that level of spending is too high, so go back and think again.
	We have talked about locally elected police commissioners. It is a radical idea that might frighten the horses, but it is about giving accountabilityabout allowing local people a say in how local services are delivered. That is very important.
	I do not live in cloud cuckoo land; I know that there will always continue to be frustrations between central and local government, particularly while central Government continue to provide the bulk of the funding for local government. However, I believe that our party is on a journey to push power back to local councils. The reason for that is partly historical; we have been in opposition for 10 years, so our opportunity to exercise power has come at the local level. That has given this House outstanding Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is another outstanding local government servant. It has also given us outstanding council leaders and an opportunity to think and innovate.
	Let us look at what is happening in Oxfordshire county council. The increase in the budget from central Government is pathetic: it is 2 per cent. in 2008-09, 1.7 per cent. for 2009-10 and 1.5 per cent. for 2010-11. Those budget decisions were made by Ministers because Oxfordshire county council is, of course, a floor authority. In his budget speech, the leader of the council, Keith Mitchell, saidagain, they were bitter words of frustrationthat we now have a financing system for local government that is
	so opaque as to make any coherent analysis impossible.
	He said that if he was a cynical man he would have believed it was
	designed to minimise transparency and...maximise the opportunity for political manipulation.
	That is where we have got to in terms of the relationship between central and local governmenta system that is so opaque that even a man who has served at county council level for 20 years, and who leads a county council with a 1 billion budget, cannot make head or tail of it, and neither can his officersor, I suspect, officials in the Minister's Department. We must rip this up and start again.
	Despite the constraints I have described, the county council continues to deliver value for money for local council tax payers. It has achieved efficiency savings of 40 million, and it will be proud to put that on its council tax bills. It has reduced the rate of increase in council tax from 4.5 per cent. to 3.75 per cent., which is far ahead of its own target. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley alluded to the fact that it has achieved that through greater shared services. The council has other achievements: electronic social care records; the refurbishment of its offices; closer working between the special educational needs department and the primary care trust; putting in place, despite a lack of Government funding, new provision for post-16 SENa campaign in which I was closely involved; free parking; and the refurbishment of Oxford city station. Of course, the crowning glory is the fact that it is the first county council to receive a corporate charter mark. I have no idea what a corporate charter mark is, but I am immensely proud that my county council was the first to get one.

Tim Loughton: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I was so moved by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) that I wanted to make a few commentsalthough I cannot claim to be inspired by the waters of the Thames. The water is rather saltier down on the south coast.
	The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and other hon. Members have spoken about the need for efficiency savings, smart purchasing and innovation. Too much innovation in local government is stifled by the stranglehold that the central grant system still has on the way in which local government runs. My local councilsAdur council and Worthing councilhave been creative in working together in the last few years. Their joint working is so advanced that it is used as a model for many other councils. Without actually merging, Adur district council and Worthing borough council have merged some departments, so we now have a joint rubbish disposal department, which can buy a joint fleet of environmentally friendly, state-of-the-art trucks. We have merged the management system and the legal services department to save staff overheads. The councils also have joint IT purchasing agreements with other local councils. This provides a model for how councils can run their operations more cheaply without compromising qualityindeed, they can enhance quality.
	We have much to be proud of, and that is why it is so galling that all that good workto reduce the cost of running local government at the same time as improving servicescan be undermined by an obligation, such as concessionary bus fares, that has been imposed on local councils. I should say that I am fully in favour of the concessionary fares. When I mentioned this in a debate last year, I was misinterpreted by irate pensioners who thought that I wanted to curtail their jaunts on buses. I had no such intention. If people want to take more bus journeys, that is fine. They are good for their health and I am fully in favour of that. However, if the Government are to be true to their word and fund the policy fully, the funding allocated between local authorities has to be fair.
	I do not dispute that the total sum provided may be the total amount required, but the sum provided to run the scheme in Worthing and Adur falls well short of the actual cost. I will take up the Minister's earlier invitation to send him details, and I hope that he will meet another delegation. This year, Worthing faces another deficit of 500,000, which is the equivalent of several percentage points on its council tax. The council would much rather have lower council tax and see that money spent on services. That is why the situation is so unfair and galling. In my part of the world, the high pensioner population creates extra demands. We have the highest proportion of over-85s in the country, at some 4.6 per cent., with the resultant extra requirements for expenditurewhich we are happy to spend.
	As a floor council, West Sussex county council is right at the bottom of the pile. Our increase this year is 1.75 per cent., or an extra 1.7 million. If one takes away the school spending, that equates to 4p a week more per resident per week for all services except schools over the next year, and the increase is even less next year. On the other hand, Dorset does not have the area cost adjustment and it will get a grant rise of 7.6 per cent. Its demographics are similar to ours.
	The Minister asserted in his speech that councils have received above-inflation increases since 1997, but West Sussex is in no such fortunate position. Its rise of 1.75 per cent. compares with a RPI figure of 3 per cent. The same was true last year: our grant increase was 2 per cent. with an RPI of 4.3 per cent. Those low rises are a direct consequence of changes made by Government to the grant system, removing funding from West Sussex and many other south-east authorities for the benefit of authorities in the north and midlands. If we had received an average grant settlement since 2003-04, when the Government changed the grant system, that would have produced an extra 28 million per annum for the countyenough to fund 700 extra social workers or to provide 1,680 residential care placements or more than 600 foster care placements. The impact of general inflation on non-school services alone is more than 10.5 million this year, and we are getting 1.75 million.
	On children's services, the public law fees for child care hearings that have increased will cost the county 200,000an extra cost beyond that funded by the Government in the 2008-09 settlement. All the extra requirements for child protection that we debated in the House last night will impact on our budget. On adult social care, a lot of extra costs simply will not be funded.
	In other areas, such as recycling, West Sussex has made great innovations. It has committed 1 billion in total over the next 25 years for a state-of-the-art biological digester plant that will produce compost and dispose of our waste in a very environmentally friendly way. That will all be funded with no additional Government support. We are doing good things in our councils, but I am afraid it is despite rather than because of Government funding.
	We welcome the area cost adjustment review that is under way. The most frustrating aspect of the ACA is that we are denied access to the data necessary to check and review the Government's own calculations. There is too much smoke and mirrors. We need greater transparency in the way that local government is financed and we need to support, rather than undermine, the great innovations introduced by many of our local authorities in quite difficult positions, particularly in Worthing, Adur and West Sussex.

John Healey: With the leave of the House, I want to respond to some of the points made in the debate. I had not quite expected to be called to speak just at that moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am grateful to you for doing so. Let me pick up where the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) left off and say that I look forward to any further information that he chooses to send me.
	May I also pick up on the point of order made by the hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper)? You pointed a finger in my general direction at that juncture, quite understandably and reasonably, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that neither of the hon. Gentlemen is in the House to hear the brief update that I can give. They expressed concern about salt supplies in Gloucestershire. The Government, through the Government office resilience teams, are monitoring the situation very carefully with the prospect of bad winter weather later in the week in some areas of the country. The Local Government Association is working very closely with us and is brokering an arrangement that can ensure that the stocks of salt and grit in different areas can be best used and can be moved when required to the areas where the priorities are most pressing. That mutual aid arrangement involves not just local authorities and local highways authorities but the Highways Agency, which carries stocks of grit and salt. Such arrangements are now relatively common and relatively well proven to deal with a range of problems. Assistance from local government and other agencies, where necessary, is provided to those areas where the problems are greatest.
	Such arrangements have worked well in dealing with other problems in the past. We are keeping a close eye on how the salt and grit supplies last, but at this stage I have confidence in the arrangements that local government, working with the highways authorities and Highways Agency, can put in place.

John Healey: I do not have an audit of salt and grit stocks across the country, and I am not sure that it has been completed. The levels being held will depend on the preparations that local authorities have made, and on the amounts that they have deemed necessary to put on the roads in recent days. The Highways Agency has sufficient stocks that it has been able to make at least a day's worth available to local highway authorities. That is a valuable contribution to the arrangements that the LGA is helping to broker to ensure that salt and grit are where we expect the greatest pressure to be, or where the priorities seem most pressing. I hope that helps the House.
	I turn now to the substance of the debate, beginning with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. He said that things had changed since the start of the three-year settlement, and it is certainly true that his party's promises about local government have changed.  [ Interruption. ] We are talking about funding for local government, and what has changed is that a Conservative Government would now make the limit to local government a rise of 1 per cent. in real terms above inflation. That compares with the 2.8 per cent. rise in real terms for the core grant that we are putting in place for next year.
	Moreover, if a Conservative Government were elected, the change that I have described would be introducedand felt by local governmentnot in some distant future but after only eight weeks. Some 240 million would be taken out of central Government's core grant to local government. It is really not good enough for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to suggest that somehow that could be dealt with through efficiency savings. They cannot be made in such a short space of time, so the Conservative plan can mean only one thingthat the services that people need would be cut.
	In many ways, this is a case of back to the future

John Healey: There is a bit of chuntering on the Opposition Benches, and I am not surprised, as Conservative Members do not like to be reminded that central Government funding for local government in each of the four years up to 1997 did not rise by an amount above the level of inflation, as it has done since 1997. Nor did that funding rise in line with inflation: instead, it fell by 7 per cent. compared to inflation in those four yearsa point of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite rightly reminded the House.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was challenged by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) about his policies on council tax. I understand why he shifted uncomfortably and chuntered rather vaguely for a while, as the shadow Chancellor is conning the public with his announcements and suggestions about a council tax freeze. For example, he said to the Conservative party conference:
	I can tell you today that the next Conservative Government will freeze your council tax for at least two years,
	but that was a con, as not all council tax payers' bills would be frozen, only those in the areas taking part in the scheme. Moreover, how would the freeze be paid for? The Conservative leader has said that the money would be taken from central Government advertising budgets, but he has suggested that those same budgets would pay for other policies.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to contrast the amount of grant received by those three local authorities with the average grant for Greater London authorities of all complexions. Secondly, will he confirm that regardless of whether something has changed since the last settlement, something has changed for him in the past three hours since he said low tax does not have to mean service cuts?

John Healey: Low tax does not need to mean service cuts. It does not mean it in Hackney, Newham or Greenwich. The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding formula for those three councils; it is precisely the same funding formula that is applied to other London councils, and to all councils across the country.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) to this debate on local government. It is good to see him here. He was right to pay tribute to our council leaders. Many councils across the country are well led, and it is important that we make that point, irrespective of party. He described their passion for their area, and he is quite right. We see in the best of local government a commitment to the very best in public service. I am just disappointed that his contribution to the debate went downhill after that.
	I had not heard the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) speak in this House before. I genuinely welcome his experience in local government. I welcome the interest that he and Members of all parties take in the subject and in our debates. I hope that his clear and genuine localist commitment does not disappear during the time that he looks forward to spending in this House. Like the hon. Member for Wantage, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Henley for his exposition of what a corporate charter mark is. It was instructive to Labour Members, as well as to Conservative Members.
	The hon. Member for Henley talked about the settlement figures in Oxfordshire and took me to task on the figures for local government generally. The figures speak for themselves when it comes to investment and increased funding from central Government to local government. The distribution of the funding reflects the relative wealth of an area, and its ability to raise revenue locally in light of its council tax base. It also reflects the relative need and deprivation of areas. He complains that Oxfordshire is a floor authority that had a 2 per cent. rise last year, a 1.75 per cent. rise this year and a 1.5 per cent. rise next year, and then complains about the floor. I have to say to him that those rises are a result of the application of a formula that takes into account the relative wealth and needs of an area. Without the floor, which we introduced several years ago, Oxfordshire would be 9 million worse off this year, so I am surprised that he does not welcome, rather than criticise, the floor.

John Healey: My hon. Friend was a senior councillor on Wigan council. He made wide-ranging comments about primary care trust funding. He made strong arguments for the economic value of council activity and council investment in housing. I listened with care and interest to his views on the future reform of council tax.
	I come to the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). Let me start by reassuring him that I am keeping a close eye on the preparations for 1 April and the new unitary authorities in Bedfordshire. Like him, I want the change to be successful and in the interests of all Bedfordshire residents. If he has a particular concern about the plans for schools, I will happily discuss it with him later, as he asked me to.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us that he welcomed the three-year settlement from the Opposition Dispatch Box when I first announced it. He went on to argue that the settlement should be set aside because of the economic downturn, rather than the period of economic stability that we have had in the recent decade. I was curious about that, because it is not what local government is saying to us. The association that represents his county council, for instance, the Society of County Council Treasurers and the County Councils Network, said that it
	is pleased the Minister has confirmed that the 2009/10 Local Government Settlement would not be re-opened and reduced, providing counties with the financial stability promised by multi-year settlements.
	That is a view that crosses party lines. Labour-led Barnsley responded by saying:
	Barnsley welcomes the stability and predictability offered in this second year of the three-year settlement and is pleased that there were no changes made to the initial announcement as a result of the current economic climate.
	East Sussex county council, an interesting one to pick, stated:
	We also welcome the decision not to reopen the 2009/10 Local Government Settlement announced last year, and thereby continuing to provide the financial stability promised by multi-year settlements.
	The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne made the point that the support that we have been prepared to give to councils that may have had investments in Icelandic banks has been insufficient. We made the financial experts available to those councils that felt that they may experience short-term pressures. We funded that extra expertise. We are now allowing accounting treatment next year, so there will be no hit on council budgets or on council tax.
	Beyond that, surely the best thing for us to do is to continue to press for depositors to recover their funds as fully as possible, rather than writing off those deposits now and looking to a case for capitalisation or some other measure to make good any potential losses. Those are funds, as I said earlier, that are not lost. They may be at risk, and surely taking steps now and concentrating our attention on trying to get those funds back, with local government and the Local Government Association, is the best thing to do.
	The hon. Lady was right, and I think I made the point in my remarks, that the recession is creating pressures on local authority budgets and cash flows, but as the chief executive of the Audit Commission said in its recent report,
	the pressures are real but councils are coping with them well.
	It was the Conservative leader of the all-party Local Government Association who only this month said:
	Councils are working hard to keep council tax down, to keep local businesses afloat and help people deal with the impact of the recession.
	The funding settlement for local government will help them do just that. The increase in flexibility and freedom allows them to decide how best to spend the funds for their area, and above all, the increase in fundingabove inflation next year, like last year and like every year since 1997 under a Labour Governmentwill help them do just that.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Alternative Notional Amounts) Report (England) 2009-10 (House of Commons Paper No. 149), which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2009-10 (House of Commons Paper No. 150), which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved. (Ms Butler.)
	 Question agreed to.

Planning and Development (Sutton)

Peter Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend has pre-empted the kernel of what I am driving towards. If he will be a little patient, I shall come to that issue in some detail. But he is right to indicate that there has been great disquiet in the United Kingdom, and not always from the sources that we might expect. Some of us in this party are painted as taking a particular view on the different manifestations of militarism, but the Select Committee on Defence issued a report in January 2003 commenting on the modernisation of Fylingdales, which I visited at that time to see the new radar that was being installed. The project was going aheadthat was a statement of fact.
	The Select Committee noted:
	We deplore the manner in which the public debate on the issue of the upgrade...has been handled by the Ministry of Defence. It has shown no respect for either the views of those affected locally by the decision or for the arguments of those opposed to the upgrade in principle...We believe that it is incumbent on the MOD to publish as much of the detail of the request as it is able to. For example, more information could be published on the timescale for...its incorporation into the US missile defence system and how the system would be able to track missiles.
	The Committee had real and practical concerns.
	Other comments of concern were also made. In November 2007, more than 110 MPs signed early-day motion 65. It was entitled Parliament and decisions over US missile defence, and it called upon the Government to arrange a full debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said a moment ago,
	to allow hon. Members to scrutinise in public the US Missile Defence deployment plans in the UK.
	In November 2008 more than 50 MPs, including former Ministers, issued a public statement calling for a public debate on US plans to push ahead with the missile defence system using bases in the UK and Europe.
	An open debate would have been the key to finding out what was going on. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in a parliamentary question:
	When does he intend to tell the House of Commons the nature of his discussions with President Bush about the possible deployment of part of an anti-ballistic missile system for the United States in the United Kingdom?
	A pretty straightforward question, I would have thought. Unfortunately, once again, what we all believed at the time to be a commitment by the then Prime Minister was just smoke and mirrors. He replied:
	We will tell the House as soon as there is something to say. At the moment, those discussions are at a very preliminary stage, but it is important that we have them with the United States to see what options are available for this country and whether ballistic missile defence would be good for us or not. It is entirely sensible that we have those discussionsobviously they are on a confidential basis, but as soon as we have something to report we will do so.
	Having been probed further by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he went to say:
	I am sure that we will have the discussion in the House and, indeed, outside the House when we reach the point at a which a proposition can be put before people. Of course, the technology is untried
	so we agree on one thing
	and is under development in the United States which, as was indicated a short time ago, is in discussion with Poland and the Czech Republic...It is entirely sensible for us to work out the possible options and what the country's possible interests are. When we have a proposition to put, we will come back and put it. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can then tell us whether or not he is in favour of it.[ Official Report, 28 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 919-920.]
	I am sorry to say that that opportunity was not given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In a written statement issued to Parliament on 25 July 2007, one day before the House rose for the summer recess, the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), wrote:
	On 5 February 2003 the Secretary of State for Defence announced the Government's agreement to a request from the US to upgrade the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar at RAF Fylingdales...That upgrade process is now complete and we expect that the radar will switch its operations to the new equipment from August 2007... Also, at RAF Menwith Hill
	a misnomer, because I think there are only about two or three RAF people at RAF Menwith Hill, and it is wholly American-run, controlled and organised
	equipment will be installed and operated by the US Government to allow receipt of satellite warnings of potentially hostile missile launches, and will pass this warning data to both UK and US authorities.[ Official Report, 25 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 71WS.]
	There we have ita Prime Minister promising one thing and a Secretary of State for Defence doing something entirely different without any reference to the House, showing almost total contempt. So much so that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs later stated in its second report on global security and non-proliferation:
	We regret the manner and timing of the Government's announcement that RAF Menwith Hill is to participate in the US ballistic missile defence system
	note the name change
	and the resulting lack of Parliamentary debate on the issue. In its response to this Report, we recommend that the Government inform us of the date on which it received the formal proposal from the US to include Menwith Hill in the BMD system. We recommend that there should be a full Parliamentary debate on these proposals.
	Almost as an aside, the report continued:
	We conclude that Russian opposition to US ballistic missile defence (BMD) plans in Central Europe largely reflects Moscow's sensitivity about the presence of NATO infrastructure in its former satellite states. As such Russian opposition will be hard to overcome.
	I fear that the Committee understated the case at that stage.
	There was still no explanation of why the promised and heralded debate never eventuated. I hate to pay in aid members of the Liberal Democrat party, but the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) tabled a written question to that end. He asked,
	for what reason no debate, consultation or oral statement took place in the House before the decision... to allow the installation and operation by the US Administration of equipment to allow receipt of satellite warnings of potentially hostile missile launches at Menwith Hill; and whether any intelligence received via the installation will be made available to the United Kingdom at the same time as to the United States.
	The responsible Minister gave the same sort of evasive, bland non-answer that we received previously. The then Secretary of State said:
	Defence Ministers routinely answer written and oral questions on missile defence issues and there are regular defence debates scheduled throughout the year to allow MPs to raise specific issues on the Floor of the House. My written ministerial statement... was intended to keep the House informed of developments in areas of UK support to the US missile defence programme.
	That is an insult to the House's intelligence. To table that as a substantive reply to a simple question, raising a matter that the former Prime Minister had promised on the Floor of the House, is an absolute insult.
	Another Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked the Secretary of State for Defence,
	when a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the UK and US governments on the formal use of RAF Menwith Hill in the American Missile Defense System; and if he will place a copy in the Library.
	That is an important question and the answer was:
	There is no memorandum of understanding covering these specific arrangements.[ Official Report, 16 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 937W.]
	If there is no memorandum of understanding and no consent from the House, who has the wherewithal and the power to take on themselves the task of effectively negotiating a foreign treaty with a foreign military power over a sovereignat least in theoryBritish base? I would like to know the answer to that. I hope that the Under-Secretary can provide an answer to that and other questions at some stage, if not today.
	I ask the Under-Secretary on what legal basis does the UK support US missile defence. Do the Government agree with President Obama that missile defence should
	not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public
	and, presumably, the British public?
	Have the Government joined NATO in welcoming the announcement by Russia that it was
	shelving plans to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad?
	I believe that the Russians are making a gesture to the new US Administration, and I await with eager anticipation Her Majesty's Government's response to it.
	Do the Government recognise that the new US Administration offer the UK and the world an opportunity to ease global tension by resiling from many of the aggressive foreign and military policies, including missile defence, of the Bush years, to which we gave knee-jerk obeisance, as an unequal partner in the so-called special relationship?
	The Under-Secretary may be glad to know that this is my penultimate question. Do the Government agree with the July 2007 YouGov survey, which showed that 68 per cent. of the British people agreed that UK support for missile defence should be decided by Parliament, while 54 per cent. agreed that siting US missile defence early warning bases in the UK, Poland and the Czech Republic would increase security threats faced by the UK and Europe?
	Finally, will the Government allow Parliament to debate and decide whether the UK should continue to participate in the US missile defence programme, as promised by the former Prime Minister, as recommended by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and as agreed to by 68 per cent. of the British people in the aforementioned YouGov poll, regardless of whether or not President Obama decides to proceed with it? I hope that at some stage either the Minister or his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence can give me substantive answers to those questions, rather than dismissive ones.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.( Chris Mole.)